Slashdot Mirror

Just a bit of background. There was a trial by project Wing last year (mentioned in TFA). That trial copped enormous backlash from local residents, mostly around the noise.

Despite the public outcry, they are proceeding with the next step towards commercialisation.

How did they manage this? And why Canberra?

Canberra (Australia's capital city) sits in a Territory (ACT), not a State. The jurisdiction distinction between Federal laws and Territory laws are less clear compared to between Federal laws and State laws. For example, the ACT has in the past has legalised marijuana, euthanasia, and pill testing, and each one has been struck down by Federal government. This would not have happened if the ACT was a state.

Project Wing have wedged themselves into this gray area. With the Territory government and the federal Aviation Authority (CASA) each pointing the finger at each other, arguing about who's jurisdiction it falls into. The local government doesn't really want it to proceed, but doesn't feel like it has the power to stop it.

And no it's not going to hover over you and drop the pizza.

I beg to differ

No, coral as a whole is not going to go extinct. But some species will (some already have) - many others will not be able to adapt rapidly enough, given the current pace of change. In time, once the climate settles down, the survivors will doubtless adapt to the new norms and new reefs will flourish.

But on more human timescales, it seems all but certain we'll lose most of a major World Heritage site and one of the Seven Natural Wonders of the world. We lost 27% of it in 2016, and we're set to lose up to another third after 2017. I took my kids diving there last year, while there was still something left worth seeing, and the deterioration I've personally witnessed since the 80s and 90s was heartbreaking.

The real crime is that the Australian Government has taken this long to summon even this level of action. Agricultural runoff has been a problem for decades, but the Government has consistently underfunded efforts to improve this, censored UNESCO reports describing the Reef's vulnerability, lobbied hard to avoid an Endangered listing, and both political parties have given every support for major new dredging and coal-handling developments at Abbott Point that will certainly further worsen water quality on the nearby Reef.

Even if you view the Reef merely as a valuable national asset, this negligence will cost us all.

If you had actually read the real article that was the source of this story you would have seen that Russia... contacted the Clinton campaign too.

There's "truthiness" (it ain't even a real word) and the "whole truth".
  Ms Zakharova said that Russian embassy staff met members of Trump's campaign, which she described as "normal practice".

Mrs Clinton's campaign refused similar requests for meetings, she told the agency(Bloomberg News).

Either you are a liar (don't tell the whole truth), or a moron. Pick one, we already have. You voted for yours.

You're just pissed off because Trump supporters trying to crash a Clinton rally tend to get... well... ignored.

The entire narrative of the Trump campaign is just a fantasy. A quick look at who advises Trump is instructive

Nope - single phone tethered to his laptop apparently. He was using Telstra's 4GX network which can easily give in the range of 200-300 Mbps downstream if you're close-ish to a tower. So averaging 11.6 MB/s is perfectly doable.

Here's another article with some more info on this guy and some speedtests etc: http://www.canberratimes.com.a...

That's interesting about Kaspersky. I wonder if that's an indication that they may be working with criminals, or if it's just some sort of sense of patriotic pride (we have the best criminals, AND the best researchers!), or even if the researchers feel like there would be repercussions if they said anything. I have no doubt that cybercriminals in Russia are probably receiving some sort of direction, support, or protection from their government.

Or because they live in the same place? (don't throw stones when you live in a glasshouse?).

Ask the people who live/work near gangsters what they think of their infamous neighbors - be sure to tell them their comments will be made public. Few are likely to lack the sense of self-preservation that stops them from putting dog shit in their mouth to test whether it really tastes as bad as they've been led to believe. That's not a phenomena that only occurs in Russia. Same in Melbourne as it is in Chicago - there's always a chance that when you offend those with power by shining lights on their activities they'll find out. The nature of "organized" crime is that it not only "taxes" other criminal activities (i.e. cybercriminals making real money), it pays for protection (politicians and police don't have to "solicit" bribes).
It's a little simplistic to say cybercriminals get support from politicians - they do, but only in the same way that burglars and prostitutes do, via a pyramid of "taxes" and a host of not necessarily enthusiastic third-parties. Politicians rarely sit at the top of those pyramids.

My life belongs to me, and if it sucks, I want to end it without any interference from religious morons and brainless public administrators like Ms. Barber. Removing the means of suicide does not solve or prevent the real problem: people have less and less reasons to live.

Why should I live and get education when engineering is off-shored to brainless indians and chinese?
Why should I live and contribute to knowledge if science and research is constantly mocked, ridiculed and deprived of funding?
Why should I live when I've been treated as a insignificant cog in a corporation (which is now true for everything - even universities are run like a business)?
Why should I live when some female bitch, whose mental capacity was enough only to graduate from an obscure secondary school in a german village, is sitting in EuroParliament and blathering about shutting down nuclear fission and fusion research?
Why should I live when postdocs are lasting months? What useful science could possibly be done in couple of months?!
Why should I live when even art and music became a commodity, and are forced to cater to lowest form of human waste?
Why should I live when imbecile politicians want to turn the whole country into a large maximum security prison?!

I want to kill myself not because I cannot cope with pressures and competition, but because stupid MBA morons hijacked the system and gained power over creative and talented people. Remember those socialized schmucks who bullied and ridiculed you in high school and universities? Now they are MPAs, MBAs and your bosses - they hate you and want to crush you, because deep inside they realize that they are worthless earthworms compared to creative people. I worked hard to solve difficult problems and hence earn my Ph.D. in electrical engineering, but thanks to banksters and businessdicks, the long-term postdoc positions have vanished and even short-term postodcs are nearly impossible to find anywhere in the world.

My life belongs to me - not to a district attorney or moronic MPA. And when I want to end my life, I want my decision to be respected. It is not difficult to implement: farmers already use Controlled atmosphere killing for animals slaughter - inhaling inert gas guarantees a painless and quick death within minutes. You don't even have to build any new buildings or suicide booths - morgues are perfectly fine and can easily cope with those who want to voluntary end their lives.

Instead of stupid regulations, how about giving more reasons to live and removing the reasons for suicide? Or at least simplifying the whole process of ending one's own life? It is harder than writing useless regulations, for sure, and requires substantially more brainpower than a typical MPA possesses, but we still have some smart, educated, thinking people on this planet, aren't we?!

Australian cops are *dirty*

NSW!
Good cop, bad cop: how corrupt police work with drug dealers http://theconversation.com/goo...
Corruption is endemic within Australia's police agencies, and certainly within the Australian Federal Police and New South Wales Police, which between them cover the Sydney airports. It also embraces crime commissions and other institutions charged with responsibility for police governance on behalf of the public. http://www.expendable.tv/2011/...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
http://www.abc.net.au/news/201...
Pressure grows for NSW police inquiry
Posted 8 Oct 2012, 7:18pmMon 8 Oct 2012, 7:18pm
Up to 200 police officers may have been spied on with listening devices and telephone intercepts.

VICTORIA!
http://www.theaustralian.com.a...
Victorian police corrupt: ex-judge The Australian
VICTORIA'S police force is riddled with "deep-seated and continuing corruption" that will only be flushed out by a powerful and wide-ranging royal commission. Don Stewart, one of the nation's most respected judicial figures, says Victoria Police and the Bracks Labor Government oppose a royal commission because they do not want the extent of corruption within the force made public. "They know that it would reveal what they don't want revealed," says the former Supreme Court judge and founding head of Australia's first national crime agency. Dismissing arguments that dirty police are already being driven out of the force through the courts, he says the recent convictions of senior Victorian officers on corruption charges are "the tip of the iceberg". "The arrest of some corrupt police only proves that corruption is deep-seated and continuing," Mr Stewart says in a book to be published in March.

CANBERRA!
http://www.canberratimes.com.a...
A long history of police corruption. In 1990 the AFP officer Michael Anthony Wallace was convicted of stealing $20 million worth of drugs and cash exhibits. In 1995 Standen's colleague, Alan Taciak, rolled over in the NSW Police royal commission and alleged 78 AFP officers - 15 per cent of the force - were corrupt. Taciak's allegations sparked the Harrison inquiry in 1996. Its final report, which is understood to have alleged widespread corruption in the AFP, has also not been released. The head of the inquiry, Ian Harrison, now a Supreme Court judge, said many agents escaped investigation by quitting the AFP. In 2001 Standen's former boss at the Sydney drugs unit, Cliff Foster, committed suicide while under investigation over corruption.

SOUTH AUSTRALIA!
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/...

DARWIN!
http://www.abc.net.au/local/st...
NT police oppose anti-corruption tests. The Northern Territory Police Association says it will oppose Federal Government plans to secretly test officers' integrity as part of new anti-corruption measures.

QUEENSLAND!
Queensland police misconduct files reveal corruption, favouritism, sexual misconduct

Is this Attorney-General could be the most disliked Attorney-General in Australian History? Does she think throwing the public a morsel will distract them as she beats them to death with a stick? Good luck with that.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/politics/roxons-calls-on-slippers-crudities-show-questionable-judgment-20121017-27rgz.html
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/10/18/how-not-to-launch-a-public-debate-by-the-a-gs-department/
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/10/20/asio-reels-in-a-g-line-on-illegal-fishing-hook-line-and-sinker/

People think they have Privacy Laws and the Privacy Commissioner protecting them. They don't. Like much the government does to reassure the public, they are deliberately weak and there for just for PR value. If you ever try and use them you will find they have all the whipping power of a wet lettuce leaf: The worst thing the Commissioner can do is write a letter to a company breaching your privacy saying "Please don't do that." There is no fine. http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/youre-being-more-closely-watched-20120916-260ko.html

Add to that Nicola Roxon's plans to snoop on Australians Internet Usage. Do you really trust public servants to keep your private that information secret? The only privacy they care about is hiding their mistakes from public. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/police-fight-to-keep-corby-secrets-20120922-26dni.html

As for your privacy, they don' think you should have any: http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/380194/20120904/ag-nicola-roxon-bats-data-retention-laws.htm

So you think you have free speech because a government web site says you do? Let's look at that a little deeper:
http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm

" Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write ... ",
Sounds good, but you can do anything within the bounds of the law. Here's an equivalent sentence I just made up:-
" Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to kill anyone they like, at any time ..." (which is true, assuming there's a law that says a soldier is allowed to kill someone else, and the "Australian" in question in my sentence happens to be one, and feel like killing an enemy...)

Their quote continues:
" Free speech comes from facts, not rumours "
Which I could legitimately re-write as so:-
" Australia has laws to prevent you from saying anything you cannot prove. You are not free to spread rumours which you suspect but cannot prove because you are missing information (more on that below)." And God helps anyone who gives you that missing information!

And more:
" and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. "
LOL. You have the right to speak out, so long as you are constructive to your opponents and do not harm them.
Sounding less and less "free" to me...

It continues:
" There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. "

At what point do we draw the line and drop the word "Free" entirely I wonder?

And it ends with a doozy:
" Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others" (even if they deserve it!)

So basically, you can do anything that's as fucked up and stupid as you like, because nobody is allowed to tell anyone else about it, because it might harm you...

James Ashby who is now facing 10 years in prison: "Mr Slipper's lawyers suggested James Ashby could have breached sections of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, which prohibits public servants from publishing or communicating internal documents without authorisation." Free speech my arse

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/staffer-could-face-10-years-for-sharing-slippers-diary-20120706-21mna.html

Canberra Times
SMH

Attorney General's press conference:

Q:And if I could also ask the Attorney-General, this kind of increased intelligence cooperation tends to also lead to increased sharing of the information of Australians [unclear] information on Australian citizens. Have we seen today with the signing of these agreements, will more information be shared between the two countries?

NICOLA ROXON: Thank you. Look, when we say that we want to increase and improve cooperation, of course it still means that we will do that within the constraints of our laws, which means that information is shared where it meets particular thresholds. Of course we have for a long time and will continue to share information with other partners when someone is involved or we fear is involved in criminal activity. That sort of information, I think Australian citizens expect us to share with others. But there are very tight constraints around what can and can't be shared.

This agreement doesn't change that. But what it means is that we can continue to cooperate very closely in sharing where there are risks, what trends change, whether there are people of particular interest. And the US and Australia and our law enforcement agencies have had very strong partnerships for a long time. This enhances in an environment where we have new threats, new risks, more online activity, more information that's obtained, more transnational crime which relies on activity that might travel through different countries. We need to be aware of all of that and that's why we want to keep working so closely with the US in improving those relationships and I think these agreements today allow us to do that.

Ahh, I see you're not good at reading, let me help you out.

You mean Conroy, not the Labor party.

Completely wrong. The beginnings of these policies started with Kim Beazley. Additionally, if it's not a Labor party policy, then you need to tell the Prime Minister that, and you might ask them to update their pages. While you can say the most recent ones are crafted and pushed by Conroy, it does have the support of "the party", where its leader and strategists speak for what the party supports.

Deputy comms minister Kate Lundy has been an outspoken critic of filtering

Partially wrong. She's been an outspoken critic of... THIS type of filter. She wants it to be an opt-out filter. She was however an outspoken critic of ISP level filtering... when LIBERAL was in power.

The contract was to buy that.

This is where the reading comprehension comes in. Even with the single line you quoted, in no way, can it be taken to mean 'they were paid to censor the internet'. Please re-read it. What it says is 'They censored the internet, at the same time as they were awarded a contract', not a contract for censoring the internet, but a contract for buying the infrastructure.

Please, keep up.

This is because they own 0% of the pits and ducts (or copper) that make up the last mile which is where the NBN is operating.

Now this is reasonably true, except that Agile (Internodes infrastructure company) does supply last mile connections for many rural communities. On top of this, they own a significant amount of interstate fiber, which is something the NBN also had in its deal, though to a lesser extent at this stage.

You dont actually understand what's going on here and should never have been modded up.

The thing I like about your post, is the arrogance it has, while being exceptionally wrong. It's almost like you're trolling me. Not sure if you're retarded, or trolling. I'm erring on the former.

And there were just those two threats, five years ago, eh? No. You need to get your information from other people than Andrew Bolt. Followup to TFA:

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/opinion/editorial/general/change-of-attitude-needed-as-debate-overheats/2194216.aspx?storypage=3

Re uniquely malevolent fauna - ASIO did like Australia gardening guru and television and radio presenter Peter Cundall.
His ideas on racial equality, education for everyone, an end to poverty, an end to war and apartheid protests got ASIO very interested.
As 'friends' they sat in on his meetings about organic gardening and took lots of notes.
Legal reforms might have exposed some of this in the 1990's, but I guess they want their powers back.
Expect many more local sneak and peek options and strange computer issues :)
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/cundall-digs-deep-into-his-asio-dirt-file/2086963.aspx

It's not ok for google to inadvertadly capture minute packets of useless information, but it's ok for the government to direct ISPs to intercept data illegally.

The Australian Labor party have time and time again broken their promises, Barging ahead with Policies that their citizens do no want and completely fucking up things they tried to achieve

The only reason Google are in hot water is because they stood up to Senator Conroy and he got upset about it.

I for one will be making my vote count this year and I urge all fellow Australian slashdotters to do the same.

I'm not sure, but he may be referring to (A) the eight years between 1996 (the patenting year) and 2004 (when the funding boost mentioned in your citation began), and/or (B) actual R&D being cut at the same time the PHBs get big raises: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/csiro-to-slash-support-funding/418253.aspx?storypage=0

-Cause stagnation via protectionist policies, then wait for other nations to pass us by on their way to a higher standard of livin and eocnomic vitality?

[Citation Needed]

Citations:

http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Protectionism.html
For you Austrian school folks (God, I can't believe I'm linking to Mises to support my position): http://mises.org/rothbard/protectionism.asp
For the interventionists, a counterpiece by Krugman, saying protectionism has a place... provided that other means fail: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/02/01/protectionism-and-stimulus-wonkish/
Another piece:http://www.morganstanley.com/views/gef/archive/2007/20070126-Fri.html

In the news, another danger of protectionism (as was seen in the great depression): http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/world/world/general/wto-fears-protectionism-domino-effect/1449424.aspx

The risk is that we adopt protectionist policies, and other nations adopt them against us -- but not with eachother. Thus we get left behind in the expansionary economies the other nations will go through. This is the problem that Krugman misses... protectionism globally will reduce the impact of economic problems in each country on the whole, only if the protectionism is directed to all trading partners. If the EU, for example, raises protective barriers agains the US, but not the rest of the world, we've got problems. Please note that this is in re: protective trade restrictions; subsidies (like the stimulus package) are another form of protectionism, that by nature are partner-agnostic, and I think this form of protectionism is what Krugman refers to.

However, we're discussing labor protectionism, which is a slightly different beast.

That is exactly what she is proposing. That creationism and biblical science be taught as a theory of science and addressed as a theory of science, and that students learn to work through alternate theories. I understand you think she doesn't actually mean that, but that is in fact what she proposed.

"Teach both," she said. "You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both." Source

She's talking about debating the facts; you're proposing teaching children by bringing up theories that were disproven. There is a difference. The fact is that she wants both taught because she believes in creationism - not that it is something that was once believed and we can learn critical thinking by evaluating it and then dismissing it - she believes it. What you are suggesting is, in fact, not what she proposed at all.

I've read that Qantas outsourced the maintenance of their planes to a Malaysian subsidiary of Malaysian Airlines, so chances are both planes were serviced by the same group of people. "Qantas management denies safety standards have been compromised by a decision to outsource aircraft maintenance to Malaysia, but such perceptions are difficult to counter when the incidence of mechanical failures has spiked just at the time when more Qantas aircraft are being sent overseas for routine overhauls coincidence or not."linky

• The Sydney Morning Herald.
  
• The Daily Telegraph
  
• The Courier Mail.
  
• The Canberra Times.