Slashdot Mirror

I have nothing against dams, I think they are an essential part of the "fix". I cannot comment on your dams, however here in Australia we had a dam project in Tasmania that really would have destroyed something special in the Franklin river. That particular dam was canned after international protests but Tasmania compensated by building other dams in less contraversial locations. These dams were built with the expectation of exporting clean electricity to the mainland through a project called BassLink (basically a giant undersea cable).

Unfortunately the climate has already changed here in SE Australia, not just the well publisized "permanent drought" but also the once predictable storm tracks have changed significantly away from pre-existing catchments. Since your in the bussiness I'm sure you know that a 20% decrease in rainfall translates to a 60% decrease in run off to the dam. The result of all this is that Tasmania's well thought out hydro scheme cannot get enough water in their dams to run the turbines. The irony here is that when Basslink was eventually completed it was not used to export Hydro power but rather to import electricity from the coal fired plants on the mainland.

"True environmentalism isn't some simple quick fix."

I couldn't agree more, it must be based on solid science. The brainwashed remark in my OP was refering to a (seemingly organised) minority of extreme right-wingers here on slashdot who go out of their way to promote the latest psuedo-skeptical talking points from anti-science think-tanks associated with the Heartland Institute who seem to spawn a new disinformation web site every second week (thier most recent success is having the top site on google for the search terms "icecap" and "ice cap"). If you haven't noticed these brainwashed dolts I can only conclude you are browsing at +5.

Actually, that's not bad advice - assuming you'd actually care for a dog (and be able to take care of it). A dog will provide you with comfort, friendship and unwavering loyalty beyond anything any human can or will. At the very least it will:

* make you more satisfied with your life and thus
* make you less desperate for company (believe it or not, desperation is not sexy)
* get you off your ass.

As a bonus it might
* provide the opportunity to meet other people
- some of which are of the opposite gender
- all of which you share a common interest (dogs)

That last point is not irrelevant, because at the very least you'll have some place to start a conversation.

Also, in a humorous side note: http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24112087-5013605,00.html

"that at least some climate activity isn't and can't be affected by humans"

Been reading Andrew Bolt's fact free opinion columns have we? Nobody who has read the IPCC reports could possibly belive that scientists dispute the existance of natural variations but plenty of politically motivated, anti-science trolls have claimed EVERYTHING can be explained by natural variation. Not the least amoung these lying hypocrites is the coal industry's pet senator Barnaby Joyce.

Here is what the BOM says about our climate and the permenant drought.

The fact that Melbourne's dams are at their lowest level ever (for how many winter's in a row now?), or the fact that most of our major cities are on severe water rationing and scrambling to build giant de-sal plants, or the fact that our grain harvest has been cut in half for all but 2 of the last 10 yrs, may not bother you, but it certainly bothers farmers and most Aussies with more than a single brain cell.

When the Chinese government announced that shipping a CD with the Green Dam software constituted compliance with the July 1st directive, that told me the government was implicitly agreeing that the software wouldn't be compulsory. I suspect we have to thank the PC manufacturers for this turn of events. It's a lot easier to throw a disk into the box. Parents might install Green Dam out of concern for their kids' browsing, but I can't imagine anyone who might be politically relevant would do so, especially if it's not illegal to operate a computer without it.

On the subject of infringement, what happens if it is demonstrable that Green Dam contains code stolen from Solid Oak? Can an American manufacturer, say Dell, continue to ship this product in China knowing that it infringes on the product of another American firm? Obviously Dell couldn't be sued in China, but could it be sued in the US?

Yea, that's why we called it "swine flu" even through it wasn't present in swine at the time (or, from what I read, transmittable by ingestion). After all, it's not like it could possibly cause a baseless backlash against the pork industry.

1) http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25585013-952,00.html

2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_587

3: Google is your friend.

It is clearly a message of solidarity.

An article in the Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/chinajournal/2009/06/02/twitter-goes-down-in-china/) says, "A Twitter spokeswoman didn't have an immediate comment and couldn't confirm whether the service was blocked in China." while Australian news media (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25581519-5001028,00.html) report, "A Microsoft official said Tuesday its Bing.com, Live.com and Hotmail.com sites were among several to have been blocked for customers in China."

Doesn't sound like the block is self-imposed. But would that make sense in any case? Self-imposed censorship in the name of free speech?

As someone who lives in China

As someone who also lives in China, my attempts to load Twitter bear the usual Great Firewall earmarks: "The connection was reset" errors with easy circumvention via anonymous proxy. Note that as of this writing (June 5, 9 PM local time), MSN, LiveMail and HotMail are accessible in Shanghai; Twitter and YouTube are not.

Lee Kaiwen, Shanghai, Chine

"in agreement on Global Warming being caused by humans."

Ditto, and I also recognise that organisations like GreenPeace spew political hyperbole. However I do understand why people get upset when the rantings of ex-tabacoo "scientists" are widely published in the mass media as a credible source for climate science.

"we get told all day long that we are heathens if we don't believe the empirical scientific evidence. In fact if we don't tow the scientific line we must be dolts and shoved to the side as nutcases"

Yes but who is telling us this, scientists or opinion columnists? Same goes for the converse argument, we are told everyday that if we don't belive the opinions of fringe dwellers and indusrty shills who cherry-pick evidence and have been thouroughly debunked time and again then we are religious zealots worshiping at the altar of Al Gore.

As you most likely realise, there is plenty of healthy debate in climate science but it's not about the much maligned "consensus", as a general rule the mass media are not interested in the finer points because nutcases sell papers.

Law and order in Thailand is a crazy topic. It seems the people responsible for law in the country have some kind of mental disorder. Just last week, an Australian woman faced 5 years in prison for stealing a bar mat. I mean, WTF? Here in Australia we've heard over and over again about Shapelle Corby, who was sentenced for 20 years for carrying less than 10lbs of marijuana into the country. I'm not saying she didn't commit a crime, but does the punishment fit what she did?

I'm beginning to think Thailand is becoming "North Korea v2.0" with crazy officials trying to enforce ridiculous policy.

Here's a nice recent overseas article mentioning the incident: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25361297-7583,00.html

as yes there actually ARE some things, like child porn, that SHOULD be censored, according to ANY ideology

Right! Life is never more complicated than an ultimatum!

yet you see people all the time, especially on slashdot, actually saying "country A censors child porn so how can it criticize another country for censoring political opinion?

Really? ALL the time? ESPECIALLY on slashdot? Lets see two examples. Not half-assed examples that might kinda sorta mean what you say if you looked at them from the most biased perspective, nor examples of people trolling, I want full-ass examples. Gotta be pretty easy to come up with since they happen ALL the time, ESPECIALLY here. Right?

Well let's see. You claim the cost per text is zero. Obviously that's not true since maintenance plus electricity for the towers costs money, but it's obviously quite cheap.

All of which the company has to pay for anyway. The text messages are sent at low priority over the metadata channel, so it literally doesn't cost them anything more to run the service than it would if they didn't. Unless you want to argue that the transmitter has to transmit for a few seconds longer per text (1kW transmitter, 5 seconds transmit time, 14c/kWh = 50 texts per cent).

So anyway..... my cellphone provider charges just 1 cent per text. That's about cheap as a plan can get, since you can't charge less than a penny (half-pennys were discontinued a long time ago).

Yes, yes they can charge less than a penny. Unless you have to physically put a coin in your telco's piggy bank every time you send a txt?

Patents are a disaster. Economist David Levine has a catalog of devastating evidence and arguments. David Heller writes that "Almost half of patents litigated to judgment are invalidated; of those found valid, half are found not to be infringed." Just think of the costs of that for a moment. Most inventions are small and incremental, not original and earth-shattering. And if you're the little guy, forget about it: if RIM couldn't fight off bogus patent threats, what hope do little guys have?

But the real scandal is the drug industry.

No pharma company is going to spend billions of dollars developing a cure for AIDS just to get five years of profits.

Right now we have drug companies that:

• Spend most of their money on marketing and relatively little on researching new drugs.
• A large proportion of the money spent on drug development is to work around competitors' patents.
• Of the remainder, most of it is for more profitable chronic conditions rather than more serious ailments.
• A good chunk of their research is publicly funded anyway.
• Many new drugs are minor tweaks of existing drugs.
• Significant life-saving drug development is blocked by a rat's nest of patents.
• Drug researchers, both commercial and academic, routinely ignore patents that would prevent them from using proprietary research techniques.
• They market intensively to doctors, wining and dining them at huge expense. The hire drug pushers to form personal relationships with doctors in order to increase their sales. Keep in mind that doctors are not their customers: they are corrupting the doctors so that we, who lack expertise, will spend money where we otherwise would not.
• They corrupt doctors, researchers and academic institutes who do trials on the efficacy and safety of their drugs. In a recent article in The New York Review of Books, a former editor (iirc) of the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine said the rot was so extensive that drug trials are basically worthless.
• They threaten and remorselessly attack those who criticize them. For example, Merck drew up a "hit list" of doctors critical of Vioxx, aiming to discredit them.
• They use every trick in the book to block exports of generic medications to AIDS-ravaged third-world countries where millions die unable to pay for drugs, even though such exports are explicitly permitted under international law.

This is what they do with the profits from patents. These guys are the big tobacco of the 21st century. Please tell me why paying monopoly rents for drugs from a corrupt industry that's not particularly interested in saving lives is better than at-cost drugs researched with public funding.

They're only delaying the inevitable takeover at the hooves of the Cow People.

Robotic Overlords were just a diversion.

Luckily, sanity has prevailed (for now) but it looked very much like these three girls would, indeed, be charged for that.

No, of course it isn't. They'd never abuse a law like that, not when it's only there to protect the children!

Actually, Conroy said it wasn't the actual ACMA blacklist, but said that many of the links were in fact part of it.

http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25214571-15306,00.html

So it's half informative list, half a clever ploy to drive traffic to obscure porn sites and half an attempt to lure pervs to fake pedo-porn sites run by TLA agencies so they can save the children ?

Wait, I put too many halves in there...

Actually, Conroy said it wasn't the actual ACMA blacklist, but said that many of the links were in fact part of it. http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25214571-15306,00.html

If there is really a giant island of plastic floating out

"The original idea that people had was that it was an island of plastic garbage that you could almost walk on. It is not quite like that. It is almost like a plastic soup," Dr Eriksen says.

As a first step, the cops should target one of their own for secret investigation. Will they do it?

I agree with you, However there are two issues that come to mind

1) the mind set : police in australia will not arrest there own. http://blogs.news.com.au/news/crime/index.php/news/comments/policing_the_police/

2) Investigations into police can bring up more dirt then they can handle . http://www.theage.com.au/national/police-watchdog-sacks-own-investigator-20090304-8oic.html

How would Peter Costello or Nathan Rees react if they were targeted for such an investigation?

The investigators would be told to cease. The powers that be know that the damage would be too great.

Why don't the politicians confiscate the super annuation of corrupt politicians ? What prevents them passing such a law?

[sarcasm warning] What are you suggesting that they get denied there right? every politician knows that if they serve the time they get the rewards.

Also for a lot of politicians its there retirement fund, imagine if they got caught doing something naughty and they had to go into a nursing home with the great unwashed - (the horror)

And last of all, why are politicians around the world so intent on destroying the last shred of privacy of the Common man under the guise of terrorism? First USA (thanks Bush), UK, Australia, Germany and lastly even Canada. Why?

there bastards

This is a positive step AFAIK.

Oh really? If you were a New South Welshman, would you rethink that knowing these tidbits?

From the first article:

These powers are more powerful than those available to the federal police when dealing with terrorism suspects," NSW Council for Civil Liberties president Cameron Murphy said. "These are exactly the types of laws that led to a huge police corruption problem in NSW in the past. It is going to lead to more police corruption. Why would the NSW Police need more power in dealing with ordinary criminals than the federal police does in dealing with terrorists?

And from the second:

Police have welcomed the new laws but Australian Council for Civil Liberties president Terry O'Gorman says they are open to abuse.

"Clearly, if the police are able to search a person's home without anyone being present, the police will be in the position to plant evidence," he said.

If you think this is just tinfoil hat paranoia, perhaps you haven't heard of the Wood Royal Commission. There's good reason to be wary of the police of NSW, and I say that despite being someone who might not be alive today were it not for a detective's hard work.

On the urban fringe (like Kinglake) there is no room to back burn, but there is still enough fuel around to keep a fire going.

Peter Kanowski, professor of forestry at the Australian National University, said in an interview with The Australian that it was generally the nature of the forests in areas like Kinglake that made backburning difficult.

"[W]et eucalypt forests, characterised by tall trees and a dense understory, did not usually burn well because they were too damp.

But during extremely hot, dry weather they could burn, and burn ferociously, because they were so dense. This is what happened at the weekend.

[Kanowski] said burn-offs were not appropriate in these forests because the only time they worked was in very dry, hot weather, and that was far too risky."

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25044204-5006785,00.html

Since then there have been NO gunrelated mass murders

When people are denied access to firearms then they will find other ways. So banning guns will not eliminate violence or mass murders. The human race was violent before firearms became available and they are violent still. Nothing will change that, unfortunately.

Labour ran with it as soon as they got in, after attacking it while they were in opposition.

Actually, it was Kim Beazley who announced Labor's Internet filter policy back when he was the opposition leader, which was obviously long before the election. In fact, it was the Coalition government who attacked Labor's policy before they then adopted a similar policy.

It was yet another reason to vote for the Greens.

It seems Senator Brown (Greens leader) has already spoken of this here. His colleague Senator Ludlam has been doing some investigation...

Chances are likely, but if you've ever listened to Bernadette McMenamin chances are I fear, that there are people that truly believe garbage like this.

Very little choice? How about one of the three largest ISPs in Australia?

It snows in Australia.
Only when Al Gore is in town.
or at least that is what Tim Blair tells me. Link

To clarify my earlier comment. Vegetarians and omnivoires both have the ability to be equally healthy. The difference is that it is much more difficult for a vegetarian to balance the food they eat and still get the same results. Certain compounds essential to your health are few and far between in veggies and are ineffective in supplement form.

http://www.news.com.au/

"SCIENTISTS have discovered that going veggie could be bad for your brain - with those on a meat-free diet six times more likely to suffer brain shrinkage. Vegans and vegetarians â" such as Heather Mills â" are the most likely to be deficient because the best sources of the vitamin are meat, particularly liver, milk and fish. Vitamin B12 deficiency can also cause anaemia and inflammation of the nervous system. "

Again, I stress that these vegetarians are capable of getting enough B12, but it's more difficult for them to find adequate sources. I guess it just comes down to an effort vs. overall health ratio. It's fairly easy for an ominvoire to simply reduce their meat intake and eat more vegetables and be equally healthy as a vegan who has to constantly and carefully balance their diet in order to ensure they're getting enough protein or B12 or other essential compounds.

This is based on today's knowledge of what is good and bad for us of course. Every 10 years or so there tends to be new discoveries as to what is required to stay healthy. It was only as recent as 2004 when Omega-3 fatty acids (contained in fish) were pretty conclusively shown to be beneficial (and essential) for your health. Vegans, of course adapt and start including more flaxseed oil into their diet (which they were unlikely to be consuming so readily before the discovery). In 5 or 10 years they'll discover something else which may or may not come from an animal source. I'm sure vegans will yet again adapt and adjust their diet again accordingly. But until then they'll of course be potentially missing the 'essential' compound they didn't realize they needed.

Carrier pigeon, obviously.

What does a fat yank cunt like you know?

More than a whinging POME bastard like you.

Type "libel tourism" into google. It is no coincidence that the UK is the centre for this sort of thing.

No I meant pH8+ to pH8+ trying to point out that the change is minute, at best, and it's nowhere near dropping even below pH8 to ... pH6 ... thus using words like "acidic" stinks of fear mongering.

Also, it's a myth. If you'd looked into the issue you'd know.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21144521-7583,00.html

(You'll find her debating the references her: http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2007/01/coral-reefs-may-benefit-from-global-warming/ )

A recent example from Australia - a hotel patron in Sydney found poo in his gelato, I believe after having made a complaint earlier that day. DNA tests and hilarity ensued.

"Crews are not paid during their time at the station, but do get valuable experience." I hope they will at least give them head scarves to protect from the sand storms
Wait, they haven't planted any corn on Mars yet...

<sarcasm>Your right. China SO much better than Bush. Why didn't I see that?</sarcasm>

I know...because your wrong. Bush didn't wage war on the rest of the world. There was a lot of misrepresentation on the part of most of the media about Iraq. WW II was a lot worse, but if you believed them, then Iraq was far worse! Bush preemptively attacked two nations who were supporters of terrorism before they could harm us more. Both now have a freely elected governments, and Iraq is now running their own security. The plan was always to hand over (& eventually leave) the country when Iraq was capable of protecting itself. That is now the case, and we now have a timetable to leave with Iraq able to stand on their own. If you believed Obama, Clinton, et. al. then this was never going to be possible. They were wrong, and the media, and the liberals, misrepresented Iraq to a majority of the people in order make themselves look better to regain power. A lot of people/suckers fell for the smoke and mirrors.

Bush liberated people, and China suppresses people. They censor the internet, and they use their prisoners (some of whom are just religious people) for spare body parts for other people. Did you get a transplant from China? Then it came from a prisoner (also (second article),). To be fair China has placed a ban on sales of body parts requiring a signature from the donor, but I don't know how this effects the human body parts harvesting from prisoners.

China doesn't need to place a value on human life because they have over a quarter of the population of the Earth (even with the 1 baby per family law). The value of life in China is cheap. Kill one person, and there are still many left to take that persons place. Take the treatment of baby girls. According to this article China is taking steps to prevent this from completely devastating their population.

<sarcasm>Oh yeah, you are so right, Bush is so much worse. Didn't you hear about the human harvesting in the inner city?</sarcasm> For those that don't get it, there is no human harvesting in the inner city.

HOW MANY TERRORISTS BRING THEIR CHILDREN TO A SUICIDE BOMBING?

Many suicide bombers are minors or women since they are less likely to draw attention. There have been several cases of mothers or parents using diaper bags to hide bombs (it's common in the middle east). One of the "liquid" plots to blow up an airplane that was stopped by Scotland yard was a mother and father who planned on using their baby's milk bottle to disguise the liquid explosive for a bomb.

I know it sounds outrageous to US but the terrorists are playing on a ball field with completely different rules when it comes to respecting the life of innocents.

I might be too late with my comment considering that the earth is cooling now, and perhaps not as hot as once though, but I think I have a solution:
I propose that the use of several large planet-sized magnets inside the orbit of Mercury would create a field to alter the incidence of sunspot activity. We could do that if the giant space mirrors or global stratosphere aerosols don't work. (Didn't I see that in the Animatrix?)

When speaking broadly, you do some more mainstream of the group a huge disservice. Not that many around here will call you on it.

Saying "Christians do not deny...", you are speaking far too broadly. You should say, "proponents of creationism" or some such. The simple reason being that the Vatican has claimed otherwise. Maybe you'll next claim that Catholics aren't really Christian, but most people, I think, understand them as such.

Personally, I don't find any contradiction from evolution to ID to creation, as I merely see evolution as the how, not the why. And, even then, I see small and large holes in evolution, holes that remain to be answered, not as disproof, similar to how the laws of relativity merely filled holes in Newton's laws rather than disproving them.

1 - Create Miis for all your family.
2 - Buy a Wii adult game.
3 - ????
4 - ????
5 - ????
6 - ...
7 - "We call it: The AWiistocrats!"

8 - Get arrested and charged on incest/child porn related charges in Australia, because cartoon porn kids are real and so are pooter porn kids too damit! http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,24767202-2,00.html

Hey, in News South Wales, Australia, cartoon characters are considered "persons" by the NSW Supreme Court.
source

I want to see a polygamous marriage of a human being, a cartoon character of the same sex, and a corporation.

"The policy for the mandatory clean feed was written and put in place after he was given the portfolio."

That was my point, combined with fact that the NBN was "in the works" under Howard it debunks the OP's "coincidence" idea.

"What evidence do you have to support your claim?"

Conroy maybe the altar boy but Fielding is the rabid preacher who has got labor by the short and curlys (Hanson did pretty much the same thing to the liberals). The greens and the liberals have both stated they will not support a mandatory filter and they intend to block it in the senate - so it's not going anywhere fast. - That, the balance of power thing and the preference deals are all public knowledge but are certainly not proof positive.

Perhaps I've watched to much "Yes Minister" but the test of my armchair theory will be if Fielding consistently votes with Labor on the big ticket items that are opposed by the liberals but supported by the greens. I don't hear Conroy personally supporting a mandatory filter (especially recently), what I hear is another Peter Garrett, ie: someone going through the motions of demonstrating party loyalty. Here is a random article from a quick "fielding filter" search on google, try and find where Conroy personally supports it, go to the end and read what Fielding said.

"He's a headkicker - a politician who is in it for the politics"

I agree wholeheartedly but you have to get close to someone to kick them in the head, why else would he be forging ahead with what he knows will not pass the senate other than to kick someone's head? - Have any Machevellian theories as to who that someone is?

No it's more like this:
Optus spent $5 million creating a 900 page bid proposing an open playing field. I don't think the details are public yet, but that link has the media release. They also fronted a $5 million bond.
Telstra sent in a 14 page memo saying something along the lines of "we'll do it as long as you guarantee our infrastructure monopoly and we wont pay the bond, but we promise to put in $5 billion".
If this gets up, this is a win for all Australian Internet users. "Telstra has said entry-level access to its proposed NBN would start at $39.95 per month for a 1 megabit per second connection with 200MB of download capacity."[ref] This is what we could look forward to under Telstra. More of the same shite. That 200mb includes backhaul too.

Or rather:

3) Telstra submitted a non-conforming tender and the Government had no choice but to reject it.

Being a Government employee myself, when it comes to tendering you have to apply the same rules to everyone. If the Government had accepted Telstra's tender, even though it did not comply with the requirements in the RFT (and this was well publicised, they would have left themselves open for all sorts of problems, e.g. being sued by other applicants.

Optus was right to say that Telstra's submission was a joke: a 12 page letter to the Minister in lieu of a serious tender for a $4.7bn project is brinkmanship of the worst sort and the Government was right to call their bluff.

I beg to differ.

Consider that the competitor may (yeah, I know, work with me) be able to provide a tender for a FTTH solution, as opposed to the rather short-sighted FTTN solutions bandied about. (Axia has been talking about FTTH for their bid.)

Suddenly there's no issue with Telstra - the whole legacy copper network is leapfrogged. Competition on pricing and/or quotas rages. Australia is future-proofed and Telstra has to come up with another (distinguishable) technology to stay in the game.

I realise this is not an overnight solution, but we should all be thinking further than ten years into the future. I am very hopeful that FTTH becomes a reality with the new Australian NBN, and now that Telstra is out, it's just that little bit more likely...

Govt hits back at Telstra - http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24802044-15306,00.html

Of particular interest is this snippet form the above story:
"The independent expert panel charged with assessing the bids obtained five separate pieces of legal advice which said it could not consider Telstra's bid.

That advice was from internal government lawyers; the Australian Government Solicitor; respected private law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth; senior counsel appointed by Corrs; and finally, the Solicitor-General, the Government's top legal advisor."

Long story short- Telstra screwed themselves becuase they submit a non-compliant bid. They CAN'T accept the bid because if they do, the other parties that did submit compliant bids could possibly sue them.

At least the $100 million (citation?) spent by the previous government on examining Internet censorship still left us with a choice of whether or not to participate. I would rather see $100 million spent on trying to catch and punish the people making and distributing the real kiddie porn.
In other news,in Sydney, a homeless guy was today charged with having child porn on his phone. It was pictures of kids running around in public in their underwear, so apparently children playing, with clothes on, in a non-sexual context is also considered porn. The implications of this are quite profound, especially in the context of the current debate on filtering. Oh what a slippery slope.

They submit a non-compliant bid, really what did they expect.

Bid Rejected - http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24800767-15306,00.html
Govt hits back at Telstra - http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24802044-15306,00.html

Of particular interest is this snippet form the above stories:
"The independent expert panel charged with assessing the bids obtained five separate pieces of legal advice which said it could not consider Telstra's bid.

That advice was from internal government lawyers; the Australian Government Solicitor; respected private law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth; senior counsel appointed by Corrs; and finally, the Solicitor-General, the Government's top legal advisor."

There were four conditions that RFP documents had to meet:
* The document must be written in English.
* The measurements used within must meet Australian standards.
* The proposal must be signed.
* The document must include a plan for how SMEs will be involved.

Telstra didn't submit anything for point 4. Now for a multi billion dollar proposal, you should at least submit a compliant bid. Instead they submitted a document with their own terms and promised "more information" if the Govt agreed to THEIR terms.

They submit a non-compliant bid, really what did they expect.

Bid Rejected - http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24800767-15306,00.html
Govt hits back at Telstra - http://www.australianit.news.com.au/story/0,24897,24802044-15306,00.html

Of particular interest is this snippet form the above stories:
"The independent expert panel charged with assessing the bids obtained five separate pieces of legal advice which said it could not consider Telstra's bid.

That advice was from internal government lawyers; the Australian Government Solicitor; respected private law firm Corrs Chambers Westgarth; senior counsel appointed by Corrs; and finally, the Solicitor-General, the Government's top legal advisor."

There were four conditions that RFP documents had to meet:
* The document must be written in English.
* The measurements used within must meet Australian standards.
* The proposal must be signed.
* The document must include a plan for how SMEs will be involved.

Telstra didn't submit anything for point 4. Now for a multi billion dollar proposal, you should at least submit a compliant bid. Instead they submitted a document with their own terms and promised "more information" if the Govt agreed to THEIR terms.

According to news.com.au, the attendance in Sydney was about 300, so you'd assume nationwide it was closer to 1,000.

It was also raining, which didn't help.

.

A crowd of several hundred gathered at Stirling Gardens in Perth today to rally against the Australian Government's plans for mandatory censorship of the Internet. A Facebook page titled, Perth Australians against Internet Censorship, Say No to Mandatory Internet Filtering states that the Australian government was 'quietly going ahead with plans to filter all Australian's access to the internet in a manner similar to the People's Republic of China and Iran.' Protestors rally against internet censorship

A rally to protest against the Federal Government's plans to filter the internet is underway in Brisbane. About 200 people are at Brisbane Square in the CBD for the rally which is part of a national day of protest. They say the Government's proposals are internet censorship and will make the net slower. Brisbane protesters rally against web filter plans

I've seen bigger crowds line up to drop coins in the kettle for the Salvation Army.