Slashdot Mirror

Is this a metaphorical swept under the carpet?

To use a phrase from the Liberal party itself, they are a "broad church" of views - I think if you dig a little bit, you'll find they're actually an odd mix of ultra conservatives, and truly "liberal" (note lack of capitalisation) believers in free market.

Religion is rooted in both of the major parties in politics. You only need to see the recent episode of Q&A hosted by Tony Jones where they discussed the role of atheism in Australia. It had Richard Dawkins on the panel along with Julie Bishop (Lib), Tony Burke (Lab), and Steve Fielding (family first), and you will see that the Labor representation in this particular instance had a stronger view against atheism than Liberal.

The difference between the two parties is a large part of policy on the Liberal side has on the past been overtly based on religious belief, whereas the Labor party are being quite careful in how they advertise their policies so as not to show any link to religious groups. I think what's happening is Rudd, like Howard previously, has an open door to religious groups of all persuasions. This probably played a role in him winning the last election in fact. It is political expedience here in Australia; as much as I think it's abhorrent to be the case - particularly because the concept of separating state from religion collapses with this - it is part of the political make-up of our country.

The Liberals are probably represented by more people, who on fundamental principles, are against this filter than those who are in the Labor party. That's because of those who are truly liberty, small government, free-market loving types. To simplify this, let's say Tony Abbott represents the conservatives, and previous Liberal leader Malcolm Turnbull represents the free market types. By last count (their internal vote on whether Turnbull or Abbott should lead) the split was essentially 50/50 save for one vote.

Slightly off topic, but probably a positive in general for the future death of this Internet censorship policy, Malcolm Turnbull - who previously announced he would quit politics - has this morning announced that he will stay. This is excellent news, as I think he is the only remaining potential leader in Australian politics who has strong enough views that contradict the implementation of this filter. He has the ear of his colleagues, the ear of the media, and he is a forward-thinking man.

For the record, I normally put Labor and Liberal low on my preference votes - the greens are my minor party of choice. I also have friends who work for Liberal MPs at various levels of government - some of their stories are very intriguing indeed.

Unfortunately the government lackeys and christian rights groups continue to scream "CHILDREN!!!" and "PEDOPHILIA!!!!" and no real logic ever comes into play.

I decided to put your claims to the test. So far, all I've ever seen are these comments screamed by people trying to mock government lackeys or christian rights groups, and this mocking has been, more often than not, the extent of logic used in such comments. So, I searched "australia filtering internet" in Google, and went to the first result with anything where the government/christians had a voice. I first came to this page:

Senator Conroy says some internet content is simply not suitable in a civilised society.

"It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material," he said.

"The Government believes that parents want assistance to reduce the risk of children being exposed to such material."

He says the Government will not determine what is blacklisted on the internet in Australia, rather an independent body will determine what sites are rated as RC for refused classification.

Legislation will be introduced into Parliament next year which will require all ISPs to block material which has been refused classification in other countries.

This would include sites containing child sex abuse, bestiality, sexual violence or detailed information about how to use drugs or commit crimes.

The filtering trial attracted criticism from some who said it would not work and would slow internet speeds.

But Senator Conroy says the trial has been successful.

"Our pilot, and the experience of ISPs in many western democracies, shows that ISP level-filtering of a defined list of URLs can be delivered with 100 per cent accuracy," he said.

"It also demonstrated that it can be done with negligible impact on internet speed."

Not a lot of logic here, but there's only so much of your research you can include in such a small space, and you wouldn't want to explain yourself particularly much, since most opponents will have already set their minds against such a proposal, no matter how much you explain yourself. But, the key things here are that he does mention children, but he clearly does not limit himself to children. He believes this true for all Australians.

He notes particularly that (as the government believes) parents want some help keeping such content away from their children. So, not for the government to do the parenting for the parents, but to help. So, if little Timmy decides to go over to Katie's house, the parents don't have to come over as well, and breathe down their necks. Whether you agree with the filter or not, you have to admit that the filter isn't redundant under the assumption of perfect parenting. The filtering of everyone, assuming it's effective, serves a function that parents cannot achieve alone.

He also points out that the body maintaining the filter will be "independent", which, I suppose, is a logical response to some people's fear of government power and opacity.

So, yeah, right or wrong, he seems pretty reasonable, just like many opponents of the filter. It's a pity so few of them make it here on slashdot.

I'm against internet filtering as much as most Slashdotters, but the evidence is that most Australians want a filter. Have a look here: http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/internet-filter-survey-results This was a survey carried out by a program aimed at young hip tech-savy viewers and yet their survey showed that 80% of responders agree that filtering is a good idea. The filter would be democracy in action, it is we who are the vocal minority in opposing it not the Australian Christian Lobby in supporting it.

First, thank you for the link, it is interesting (have no mod points, sorry).

Second, is any relation between the program aimed at young hip tech-savvy viewers and the demographic statistic of the persons included in the survey? (did you try to imply or suggest something)?

And third (that's the last one I promise)... hmmm... there is something that's hidden in the bottom of the article. It reads (the emphasis is mine):

So although only 11% of people currently choose to use any form of technological (non-supervision based) internet filter to protect children from inappropriate material online, and only 37% have computers that children use, the Government continues to push this line when justifying their plan to enforce a mandatory filter on the entire population.

Like what? The gov acting in the name of the 63% which don't let their children browse the internet?

With legitimate doubts remaining about how effective the filter will be at blocking offensive content (and how else it will affect the net), it could be argued that this is a cynical exploitation of people’s technological ignorance. Senator Kate Lundy seems to confirm this view. In a question on her website she was asked:
“Will the filter give parents a false sense of security in protecting their children?”
Her answer?
“I think there is a risk of this, yes.”

I'm against internet filtering as much as most Slashdotters, but the evidence is that most Australians want a filter. Have a look here: http://hungrybeast.abc.net.au/stories/internet-filter-survey-results This was a survey carried out by a program aimed at young hip tech-savy viewers and yet their survey showed that 80% of responders agree that filtering is a good idea. The filter would be democracy in action, it is we who are the vocal minority in opposing it not the Australian Christian Lobby in supporting it.

That's true, but it shouldn't be about the content, it should be about toning the internet down so we have far less crime on the internet. It was never looked that way and the "pr0n" card was played.

Mess with peoples porn expect failure (which it has) but talk about the real issues like china and some of the nasty stuff that's happening there at the moment.

I urge you to watch this, story on the Australian News. It is 40mins long, but trust me when you get into the thick of the story you'll love it.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20100419/cyber/

I recon the filter was being pushed because this shit started showing its ugly face here in Australia, just the pollie who was trying to pull it off took the wrong path and pissed everyone off in the process.

By hyper religious, I assume you mean that earlier on his life he entered Seminary, intending to be a priest but changed his mind. Or did you mean to refer to the fact he has strong catholic based beliefs. This is important because the term hyper-religious has massively different connotations to our American colleagues, where it could/would imply that he was a member of the literal truth of the bible pentacostal brigade. At least he's been honest enough to say outright was his beliefs are, and cope with the spin/misunderstaning - http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/01/27/2802389.htm

But if you really, really care - have a look at your local candidates and think who will do more for your area. We elect our representives, not our prime-minister. You can go and approach the candidates and ask them - "My friends and I want to know where you stand on Internet Filtering because it's major factor in choosing who we'll vote for" or "Will you oppose/support the internet filtering even against the rest of your party's position?"

Mate - If you don't tell them that this is an issue, then all they have to go off is the Media - and they really treat Internet comments with sooo much respect.

rsync
Samba
and of course this little gem

I expect at least one follow-up WOOOSH! post but I derive pleasure from putting smartarses in their place.

Don't forget Stern Hu and three colleagues of mining giant Rio Tinto, who were jailed in a secret trial after stealing state secrets and taking bribes. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/12/2818526.htm

Because this is what happens to people who "leak" "state secrets".

We are also training killer Wombats and Koala drop bears.

dude. on a serious note, lets try and do what we can to protect the drop bears.

Those suicidal little bastards need all the help we can give 'em to survive.

Few can command respect by being simultaneously resourceful and comical. Aussies seem to accomplish this feat regularly.

We are also training killer Wombats and Koala drop bears.

Fear your beer swilling, redneck English, southern hemisphere overloads and our homicidal marsupials.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/04/05/2864086.htm

One of them compares the regeneration of the Doctor to the appointing of a new Archbishop of Canterbury.

What natural laziness? Australians are, on average, amongst the hardest working in the developed world. The lazy perception and stereotype that persists is outdated and needs to be thrown out.

And until you stop referring to the majority of the populace as "the masses", you're not exactly going to be leading the change. No-one thinks of themselves as part of "the masses", so some language that is actually likely to engage would be far more useful.

The bacteria in yoghurt doesn't do anything for yeast infections or to improve "vaginal flora". It may, however, feel soothing, and is not harmful if you use *plain*, natural yoghurt.

http://www.abc.net.au/health/talkinghealth/factbuster/stories/2008/10/14/2379507.htm

We should get MythBusters onto this. Particularly Kari.

Last nights ABC Radio Interview download/stream

I dont get it...
Its meant to block *very* objectional material (ie, kiddie porn & beastiality), but what about all the other porn & violence our kids should not be looking at on the 'net?
Im sure plenty of parents will get the idea this filter will protect their kids from all non-kiddie-safe material. Thats very far from the truth.
Sure, let kids view thousands of hours of kinky, watersports, scat and BDSM porn, but dont let them see one of those 400 beastiality sites, itll corrupt them forever!!

So they want to put in place a system that will cost tens of millions of $AUD, complicate ISP filters, reduce reliability, increase latency, to just block those ~400 specific URLs.
Sure, more URLs will be added, but how many out there that should be on the list will be missed?

Fucking stupid.

How this sad man Stephen Conroy can claim to be a representative of the people is beyond me. He is clearly acting against their interests and against their wishes.

Here is a more in-depth survey telephone survey commissioned by the ABC. According to it, 92% are in favour of some form of ISP-based filtering, which lends at least some credence to Conroy's claim. But that's about where the consensus ends, 70% have concerns that the filter will be used to block free speech and 90% are against a secret blacklist.

How this sad man Stephen Conroy can claim to be a representative of the people is beyond me. He is clearly acting against their interests and against their wishes.

Here is a more in-depth survey telephone survey commissioned by the ABC. According to it, 92% are in favour of some form of ISP-based filtering, which lends at least some credence to Conroy's claim. But that's about where the consensus ends, 70% have concerns that the filter will be used to block free speech and 90% are against a secret blacklist.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/newinventors/txt/s2622746.htm Finally, something smart out of Australia!

This ain't serious, people.
Yet again, they're aiming at inner-city-dwellers who earn more, pay for more expensive accomodation, need to commute smaller distances and are sometimes willing to pay a premium (most of whom use a prius, Merc SMART, bicycle or motorcycle anyway). Hell, segways will pro'lly outsell this.

This product further violates an agreement the general public have with their car - simply put, if you want mass adoption, your car needs to be a car. It needs to be a 5-seater you can pack your friends/family into, not a souped-up golf-cart. Which this is.

This is a gimick that will be dabbled with in a test site or two, and phased away.

GM are busy being the PALM of the automotive industry. We should be setting our eyes on the company that's busy being a Google or an Apple... way more serious and will pro'lly completely overhaul (read: improve on sufficiently for us to want it) how we see, buy and use cars:

http://www.brr.com.au/event/58986/partner/theaustralian

(and several days ago, this: http://www.abc.net.au/insidebusiness/content/2010/s2851753.htm).

yanks: coming your way soon as well.

Yes, the arsehole is going, but no, we didn't beat him. The vast majority of voters, as always, don't know or care about these issues, so the battle is far from won.

For the record, his attitude towards video games aren't the only reason we want to be rid of him. The man has a history of saying stupid things in an an official capacity that come back to bite him. He accused a blogger of being a non-existent sock puppet for Liberal party criticism, and he lied about a bikie gang supposedly barbecuing a cat to threaten him. I'm sure you all remember him banning anonymous political speech in the lead up to the recent elections as well...

3D is bad for your eyes.

The best use for this would be to put one on the ISS (or other "nearby" manned spacecraft where speed of light time-lag is not too long).

That way, you'll have an emergency "surgeon" available in case of a medical emergency. Nowhere near as good as a real live doc but better than nothing.

OTOH, in low Earth orbit you can bring the patient back to Earth very quickly (an emergency reentry vehicle is always available on the ISS) so the space surgery unit isn't needed. It might be useful on a lunar base, but the 2.5 second time lag would make using it tricky.

For extended space missions (e.g. a trip to Mars) I believe NASA intends to send two astronaut-surgeons (out of crew of 8 or so), so that one can operate on the other if needed.

I understand a few years ago, a female scientist had to be evacuated from the Antarctic base in the dead of the ANTARCTIC(!) winter because she had breast cancer. This could have prevented that (and eliminated the risk to the rescue crew. I think they had to keep the plane's engines on so that the skids wouldn't freeze to the ice).

Yes, she WAS the base doctor and thus could not operate on herself. Sending two surgeons to Antarctica, as in the NASA Mars plan, could have spared this rescue mission (they could have dropped any needed supplies without the hazard of landing). This is possibly a cheaper solution than a million dollar machine (the two surgeons would have other research duties and so are not just additional costs. Keeping the engines running was necessary for the engine's sake. They would not have been able to restart them in the cold.

BTW - the doctor in question, Dr Jerri Nielson Fitzgerald, died from a recurrence of her cancer last year (ten years after the rescue): http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/25/2608384.htm

Dislaimer: I am not a Roman Catholic but a Reformed Christian. However I broadly agree with this conclusion.

No. First of all, animals raised in human company are pretty much permanently stuck in a juvenile state. They have not been taught to fend for themselves and the urban and suburban environments aren't the same thing as "the wild" - available resources are far more restricted. Don't think that because your cat occasional brings a bird to the stoop that it could live a healthy life without any human support.

I think we should do an experiment. Release pets into the wild and see what happens.

Nature always finds a way.

"Some (one?) states, you see, have had intelligent water restrictions for many years and have enough water because of smart planning."

No I don't "see".

Please tell me how anyone can plan for a 10yr drought that's said to be the worst in 600yrs.
Please tell me which state was slow to introduce water restrictions.
Please tell me why Tassie imports electricity from the mainland when it spent most of the 90's building dams to export hydro power.
Melbourne is chock full of household water tanks, private bores, grey water systems, people who take a bucket into the shower to reuse on their plants, ect. The reason you can use your sprinklers is that WA has largely escaped the drought and Perth was the first Aussie city that was forced to build a massive desal plant to feed said sprinklers. You may not have noticed but evey other state capital is also in the process of building similar desal plants.
If you are suggesting that Victoria should dam the Mitchell river then you have spent too much time reading Murdoch's rags. If you are suggesting the Murray-Darling basin that crosses 3 states has been mismanaged for decades then I agree. But that's an agricultural land use problem that has nothing to do with metropolitan water supplies.

BTW: My parents have an acre of beautifull unwatered native garden in the Dandenong's and it's been that way since I was a teenager in the 70's helping dear old dad spread six inches of sawdust over the entire property. My brother has 5 acres of wholesale nursery in the Dandenongs with a 5 megaliter dam on it. My own backyard is full of sand and sparse weeds because it's 100meters from the beach, but since it's an investment and will have a couple of townhouses on it next year I would have to be an idiot to do any landacaping now.

I know, right? It's like, I tell those damn kids to stay off my lawn, even put a sign up...is it really my fault if they step on a landmine?

Yes it is.... unless you're Russian. http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/12/2818467.htm

Bugger, screwed up the html for the link on the previous post. Here's a better post anyway, with the links fixed.

The trials have already been completed. Legislation is coming in the next few months. It's not just Conroy in favour of the filter, but a majority of cabinet. The Liberal party are in favour of censorship of the web in principle, however they disagree with some of the technical points of Conroy's proposal.

Conroy has said repeatedly he supports a mandatory filter. He is cabinet's salesman for it, seeing as the filter falls under his portfolio. If you haven't heard him say it, it's because you're ignorant, not because he hasn't said it.

Senator Conroy says some internet content is simply not suitable in a civilised society.
"It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material," he said.
"The Government believes that parents want assistance to reduce the risk of children being exposed to such material."

Source

Senator Conroy says the new filter rules are not designed to curtail freedom of speech.
"No-one can currently host RC material in Australia. That is the existing situation," he said.
"To strengthen cyber safety this Government will introduce legislative amendments to the Broadcast Services Act to require all ISPs to block material rated refused classification that is hosted on overseas servers and therefore not subject to the existing take-down regime."

Source. Sounds "mandatory" to me.

Bugger, screwed up the html for the link on the previous post. Here's a better post anyway, with the links fixed.

The trials have already been completed. Legislation is coming in the next few months. It's not just Conroy in favour of the filter, but a majority of cabinet. The Liberal party are in favour of censorship of the web in principle, however they disagree with some of the technical points of Conroy's proposal.

Conroy has said repeatedly he supports a mandatory filter. He is cabinet's salesman for it, seeing as the filter falls under his portfolio. If you haven't heard him say it, it's because you're ignorant, not because he hasn't said it.

Senator Conroy says some internet content is simply not suitable in a civilised society.
"It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material," he said.
"The Government believes that parents want assistance to reduce the risk of children being exposed to such material."

Source

Senator Conroy says the new filter rules are not designed to curtail freedom of speech.
"No-one can currently host RC material in Australia. That is the existing situation," he said.
"To strengthen cyber safety this Government will introduce legislative amendments to the Broadcast Services Act to require all ISPs to block material rated refused classification that is hosted on overseas servers and therefore not subject to the existing take-down regime."

Source. Sounds "mandatory" to me.

n passing, it is a little flakey to talk about professionalism, pre 1820. that is about when, hmm, harvard, implemented the concept around lawyers.

You are getting hung up on the label again.

and for engineers the idea is the scientist figure things out and the engineers apply it, and that is hard to do with out a quantative science base

While it may not have been called science, to say that there was no empirical knowledge is not true. The engineers of Rome knew how arches worked, it was not just a guess.

you might think of a professional as someone with a certain attitude of responsibility to his client.

A professional is one who is skilled and knowledgeable in their field of work, which certainly describes many people before 1820.

and I vaguely have an engineering degress, MSE.

You also didn't seem to pay attention in English class.

sometimes i use words in a deeper way than you do

I'm not sure how you could glean that information from a few posts on slashdot.

sometime i try to be a bit funny, and then sometimes the words are intentional ambiguous, which is part of humor,and I expect sometime I am flakey.

So you are an intentionally poor communicator? You're not very funny after all.

the sudan guy

That is nether deep nor humorous. Ambiguity there serves no purpose other than to keep you from actually having to look up the information.

over 120 nations

It was 77.

And I found the quote from Lumumba Stanislaus Di-Aping: "Ten billion dollars under the current scenarios will not buy the poor of developing countries coffins, let alone address the serious problems that this challenge is causing"

His point was precisely the opposite of what you claim it was. Di-Aping wants to keep warming below 1 degree, and he feels that the current agreement limiting warming to 2 degrees is not enough. That is what happens when you get your "facts" from right-wing hacks with an axe to grind. Did you even bother to do your own research, or did you just take their word for it?

http://www.larouchepac.com/node/12768

The main page of that site has a photoshopped pic of Obama with a Hitler mustache. Somehow I just can't take them seriously. The only info I could find that was anything close to what you are talking about was China pushing its "population control" policies.

Meanwhile Eastern Antarctica (the steadfast 'unaffected' part of Antarctica) begins to show signs of melting

How can there be an Eastern Antarctica?? I thought all of the Antarctic coast was Northern Antarctica, the pole was Southern Antarctica, and if you go east you just go in a circle without ever reaching the end...

Here is a copy of the note itself
http://imgur.com/CeACw.png

How does this constitute a threatening letter?
"Dear Mick, I Can Has R18 Rating Pls? kthxbai"

Screen shot Taken from http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2010/02/16/2820930.htm (not by me)

Talk about the media taking it and running with it and blowing out of proportion

The issue isn't that the note contained a direct threat. It's that an anonymous cut-out-letter note was placed on his home doorstep. I'd be concerned for the safety of my family if people started coming to my house to leave such notes as well. It shows a degree of willingness to invade my personal space and at the same time a desire to remain anonymous that I can't imagine anyone NOT finding somewhat creepy and worrisome.

If only you'd follow your own advice. It's classic junk science. First, the numbers cited in the article are glaringly different from other sources. They claim somewhere more than 3 billion people are malnourished. A UN report from late last year reports above a billion. I don't buy that 57% of the world's population is truly malnourished. Need I add that being malnourished has nothing to do with pollution? Need I say that?

Water pollution doesn't create breeding grounds for malaria mosquitoes. That alone drops the death rate by alleged pollution by somewhere around a percentage point.

"3 million tons of toxic chemicals" are released into the environment by the US. That's nothing especially given that a lot of the "release" is into garbage dumps and a bunch of it is in forms that doesn't stay toxic for one reason or another (that is, how much leaves the environment). In any case, releasing somewhere around ten kg of "toxic chemicals" per person is pretty insignificant. This could be heavy metals like mercury or it can be vinegar. Just don't do something retarded like eating the lead paint vastly reduces how much of that actually gets into the human body.

Finally, this shoddy research ignores that most of the problem and most of the dying comes from the poorer parts of the world that don't care about pollution, water quality, etc. These poorer parts are not the developed world. Their pollution problems are not my pollution problems and can't be fixed merely by reducing the pollution emissions from my country further. It's like telling me that I personally should take remedial classes in math (despite, I might add, having a PhD in math) because a good portion of my country (the US) is rather poor at the calculus. Or throwing me into jail because members of my species commit crimes. You can't apply a blanket solution to the entire world when the relevant problems aren't similarly distributed.

The East Coast gets a bit of a blizzard (I live in DC but am from Minnesota). People start saying, "Global warming?! HA!"

Meanwhile Sagar Island shrinks away from rising oceans.

Meanwhile a UAB professor claims ocean acidification is yet another measurable effect of climate change.

Meanwhile Eastern Antarctica (the steadfast 'unaffected' part of Antarctica) begins to show signs of melting (via NASA and U of TX).

Feel free to keep using your local area to prove/disprove climate change. One day the facts will pile up ...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/07/2678945.htm

Disclaimer: I do not condone the DDoS attacks. I think they are childish, stupid, illegal and counter-productive.

We elected this government and the previous one which planned the censorship originally.

That's true, but there's one issue here which is important for everyone.

The previous government didn't "plan the censorship". Their plan was to clamp down on what is hosted in Australia that violates local content laws. The idea was to bring local Internet hosting under the same rules as local book shops. You may or may not agree with the classification rules, but that doesn't seem unreasonable to me, at least in principle. If you don't like the rules on what is refused classification, you should change the classification rules, not the rules which brings everyone under the same rules.

The current government was not elected on the basis of what they are currently proposing. The policy that they ran on has mysteriously disappeared from the ALP's web site, but a copy remains at the APH library. Here's they key snippet:

Provide a mandatory ‘clean feed’ internet service for all homes, schools and public computers that are used by Australian children. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) will filter out content that is identified as prohibited by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). The ACMA ‘blacklist’ will be made more comprehensive to ensure that children are protected from harmful and inappropriate online material.

And just after the election, news reports were still saying:

Senator Conroy says anyone wanting uncensored access to the internet will have to opt out of the service.

I, and everyone else who actually read the policy prior to the 2007 election, interpreted this as meaning that ISPs will be required to provide a feed filtered with an ACMA-provided blacklist which filters only RC material, which will be provided by default, and that customers (possibly excluding schools etc) may opt out.

Essentially, the proposal looked like it was intended to move Net Alert from the client to the ISP, and restrict the filtering to the same standard that all other media are covered by, namely RC. Yes, this would have put a burden on smaller ISPs. Yes, it might give parents a false sense of security that the feed is "clean". Yes, details would have to be worked out. Nonetheless, everyone who read the policy document seemed to agree that it wasn't a ridiculous idea in principle and it might be worth trialling.

What is on the table now is something quite different. If the proposal happens, not only will you not be able to opt out (contrary to pre- and post-election promises), but classification decisions will also be secret (at the moment, every OFLC decision is in a public database).

Wherever you stand on Internet censorship, the bait-and-switch is something that you should be angry about, and I don't think you need to be Australian to feel that anger.

"First time,Facebook was proved useful...."

Wrong

But just like that story, if they have access to facebook why not just call the police?

Yes, if you want truly large living organisms, you need only take a look at this thing.

The problem I see is that every time there is something in society that is not ideal, some schmuck asks a politician to fix it. And the politician has only one hammer: legislation, so every problem looks like a nail.

Look at this bunch of kids interview Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. Half the "problems" raised by the students are not really government problems at all. Rudd, if he had any balls should have told these kids "not my problem". But no politician ever seems to have the balls to say that. Every problem must be a government problem and "solved" via the heavy hand of legislation. Every problem must have multiple senate committees appointed and so forth, when most problems are simply problems for the community and individuals to solve by themselves. There needs to be a sea change of attitude reform. Stop looking to the government to solve all your problems. You're just mounting up legislation on top of legislation until the point where the real problem becomes the government itself, and everyone is so hamstrung and neutered that nothing can be done any more without the government.

Family First: A Federal Crusade
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s1358912.htm
They spent decades getting people on the left and right of state and federal politics to listen.
Been tax free helps too ;)
Supporting where they could, guiding and talking.
Now they have their people at the top its time to reshape Australia.
Their view of the 'net' is just the start, they have views on woman too, professions and other faiths.
Like their view on the 'net' it not going to be positive.

The website and another linked to the Department of Broadband and Communications were shut down for long periods yesterday after their servers were overloaded. Both websites were offline again this morning. A group of hackers calling itself Anonymous has claimed responsibility for the interruptions, which it has called Operation Titstorm. Anonymous claims the attacks are also to highlight moves by the Government to ban the import of pornograhy featuring female ejaculation as well small-breasted women, over fears such films were simulating child pornography. Critics say the Government's internet filter amounts to censorship and will slow down internet speeds. The Government says the filter is necessary to block websites containing child pornography and other criminal activity.

Hungry Beast last night covered this DDoS (Operation Titstorm) and the question of the Great Internet Wall of Australia. They commissioned an independent survey on the thoughts of the Australian public on the internet filter. On the site is also an interview with Stephen Conroy, the closet case that wants to ban anything that might inappropriately stimulate him.

Hungry Beast last night covered this DDoS (Operation Titstorm) and the question of the Great Internet Wall of Australia. They commissioned an independent survey on the thoughts of the Australian public on the internet filter. On the site is also an interview with Stephen Conroy, the closet case that wants to ban anything that might inappropriately stimulate him.

80pc back web filter: poll
Unfortunately this isn't so much a failure of democracy as a failure of education. A failure of the media, and those of us who understand why it's such a dangerous waste of money, to get the message out to everyone.

Seeing that article knocked my confidence a bit, I just hope that the 1000 calls made were an unrepresentative sample..

Let me state up front that for many, many reasons I think society is better of heading towards New Urbanism... both for sociological, psychological, resource efficiency and energy efficiency reasons. We could be happier, healthier, live in cleaner cities and maybe even work less hours and yet still have the same, if not better levels of comfort.

However, it seems the 2 main problems with EV's have been solved. Those 2 problems were:
1. No one wants to buy an expensive new battery every few years as the car battery runs down. (Although battery life technology increases all the time).
2. No one wants to have to stop and charge for 8 hours on the occasions they need to drive more than 160km.

This is solved with the "Better Place" battery swap system! The irony here is I actually think a "Better Place" is a car-free, or extremely "car-disciplined" town plan like New Urbanism is a much better place to live.

Better Place have developed a new international EV car standard and are inviting all car companies to join up or be left behind. Renault-Nissan have already joined up, and will be producing the first cheap mass produced electric car ever.

They sell you the car, but they own the battery.

Then for most suburban driving you'll just charge whenever the car is still. (Which works out on average about 22 hours a day!) You'll charge at home, at work, at the shops. (Better Place installs EV charge points everywhere when they "do" a city).

The CEO Shai Agassi gave a presentation at his TED talk.
Shai Agassi's bold plan for electric cars, Video on TED.com

Better Place is coming to taxis in Tokyo, a trial in Canberra, San Francisco, massive deployment in Israel (which will probably be the first country off oil for domestic car use), Hawaii, Denmark, and other places.

Shai's Australian talk basically said that on a per km basis, electricity will charge your car at about $0.80 cents a litre oil equivalent distance. Fuel in Australia costs around $1.20 to $1.30 a litre. Imagine how fast people are going to want these cars when they realise how convenient and cheap they are now, let alone when peak oil hits.

However.... there are a whole bunch of other peaks coming, including peaks in various rare earths and metals used in car production, which is why I prefer the lower embodied energy solutions of New Urbanism and walkable cities.

Even the Australian Senate found for "more walkable" cities... and yet realised this could be difficult.

"Increasing walking, cycling and public transport use in cities is a worthwhile goal for a number of reasons, regardless of predictions about the oil future. If there is a long term rise in the price of oil, it will be all the more necessary."

However we should not underestimate the difficulties involved. Vast areas of post World War 2 suburbia have been designed on the assumption that most travel would be by car, and with the aim of making this easier. The effect has been to make travel in any other way more difficult, as activity centres disperse to sites distant from the public transport network, and the environment for pedestrians and cyclists is degraded by traffic. In these areas existing public transport routes do not serve many travel needs, and existing services mostly function as welfare for people without cars, with a very low proportion of total trips

Reading the story on this link : http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/09/2814726.htm

It contains - "The matter was settled between Mr Burt and Nintendo last month."

I assume some sort of settlement has been agreed upon.

Not so silly, decades of work by a faith based group to get the left and right.
The filter was the deal for support.
Anything to mess with the internet really.
Their views on woman, sexuality and other faiths can be found at :
http://www.abc.net.au/compass/s1358912.htm
They played the long wait with both sides of politics.

There was this English couple who thought they had the perfect insurance scam - The husband would fake his own disappearance, his wife would claim the life insurance and start a new life abroad, then he would reappear years later claiming to have suffered from amnesia, and they would live happily after after in an apartment in Panama.

To achieve this scheme, they bought a house with a bedsit flat accessible through a door in the top floor bedrooms - the recess of the door was disguised to be a bedroom cupboard. He changed his appearance and was able to live in the bedsit for several years. The whole plan fell apart when pictures of the couple in the Panama apartment appeared on a website.

"At least ACA/Today Tonight (Australian "current affairs" programs) make an effort not to be obvious about inflaming public opinion."

Mate, those two shows in particular have the same smell as the Fox News channel which is available on FoxTel (Australia's biggest cable provider). Murdoch bought Oz out well before he moved to the US. Anyone doubting the influence this guy need only scoll the list in that link, what's more he will happily tell you he uses those assets to shape public opinion.

Murdoch also has a 15% stake in Ch7 (Today Tonight), Ch7 also partners with FoxTel, James Packer (Ch9-ACA) and Rupert's son are in bussiness together, James is not as smart as his dad who would slap that scientology crap out of him if he were alive today.

Like the UK's BBC, the most informative news and current affairs programs in Oz are on the state sponsered channels. Murdoch makes a noise every now and then about how unfair it is that he has to compete with public broadcasters, he then uses his media empire to point to the "socialist elite" running these institutions. But the need for these kinds of public broadcasters really hit home to me while watching the invasion of Iraq, I had access to CNN, FOX, MSNBC, (US)ABC, SKY News, BBC, Aussie public broadcasters ABC/SBS, and AlJazzera, I was not affraid to use my remote! What I saw was two distinct versions of the "real world". Hindsight is 20/20 and with hindsight I'd say that the public broadcasters were reporting a war while the rest were promoting a crusade, except AlJazzera, who were being bombed.

Sorry but I suspect the endgame is presented in this http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/02/04/2809856.htm quote: Outside court, Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft executive director Neil Gane said he was disappointed with the decision. He said the case was lodged to try to protect the livelihoods of the thousands of Australians who work in the television and film industries. Mr Gane said he was confident that the Federal Government would now review the laws surrounding copyright infringement. as the saying goes, who needs judges and courts when you can afford politicians.

Please mod this up. A good study of history will show you that people who live for power and control do not give up easily. They would not see this as a defeat; it is merely a setback that requires a change of tactics. They know very well that they need only one major victory and thereafter, the result they want will become enshrined in law and almost impossible to repeal. To give a seemingly unrelated example, the USA income tax was "temporary". It's temporary alright, in the sense that one day the sun will stop shining...