Slashdot Mirror

Market research companies, pollsters, charities and religious organisations are likely to be exempted.

JOHN HOWARD (phone message): Hello, I'm John Howard. I've taken the unusual step of contacting you with this recorded message to let you know we have recently announced what our first seven tasks will be if re-elected to office. So on Saturday, I ask you vote for your local Liberal member Peter Lindsay. This is John Howard. Thank you for your time.

They've just bought 1000 chairs, and Steve Balmer has been lifting weights! Watch out Eric Schmidt!

That's how they plan on beating Google. By killing them. The only thing I can't figure out is how to kill a search engine. Perhaps throwing chairs at their fiber backbone? Maybe a few more chairs thrown around in their server farm?

Perhaps now would be a good time for Google to start researching what to do if Steve Ballmer decides to kill you.

This is what Microsoft does with search technology, or at least what it plans on doing with it.

Hey, one of us had to make the obvious, yet obligatory, joke.

Let me preface this by saying i dont own a gun and have never owned one, however.

" Unlike Americans, we don't believe guns are useful just because it's a gun. We acknowledge it's a lethal weapon which must be used with care. It is a priveledge, not a right."

Maybe you do but there is a fuckload of people who dont:

"GCA figures indicate there are over 300,000 illegal weapons still held in Australia -- representing a massive threat to the community. Gun Lobby estimates (as expressed by the Sporting Shooters Association of Australia in 1997 in their organ 'The Shooter's Journal') suggest that number could be closer to 1.3 million guns -- many presumably held by self-proclaimed 'law-abiding' shooters," Mr Marshall said.

I would say that is low, there is statistics from the early nineties to say that there was over 5 million guns in Aus in 1992, only ~750,000 were handed in.

Also please only speak for yourself mate, i know a *hell* of a lot of people who understand that it is *exactly* the same government, down to the same people who ripped the guns out of respectful citizens hands in 1996 that is now driving this country full steam ahead into an authoritarian police state, Americas' laws are childplay compared to what were passed here after 9/11, and the government (both sides) are not finished by a looong shot. Your kidding yourself if you look to the highcourt for help, (lol you looking to Queensland for help? Home of the recently departed emporer Bjelke Peterson http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joh_Bjelke-Petersen) the courts showed whose side they are on years ago:

http://webdiary.smh.com.au/archives/000418.html

And a useful tidbit:

"Figures released by the Federal Opposition, and taken from annual
  reports of the United States and Australian governments, show that in
  the financial year ending in June 2001, more than 2150 warrants were
  issued for phone taps in Australia, but only 1490 in the US. Taking into
  account the population difference 284 million compared to just over 19
  million Australias rate of phone interception was 20 times that of
  the US."

Also just wondering if you have been in the western suburbs of Sydney lately? No shortage of hardware there, of course all in the hands of lebanese, vietnamese and anglo (bikie) gangs (as is the inevitable outcome of gun laws brought into a country that was (is) absolutely full of weapons).

I also know quite a few people who would never hand over their weapons no matter what laws the government passed. All from the old school, people who were alive and saw what 'civilised' governments will do to their citizens under the guise of 'national security', it seems the younger generation was never taught. Do you actually think that any future government will voluntarily repeal the last 40 years and layers and layers of legislation, regulations and expansion?

Don't be so sure about the 'peaceful doe' nature of your countrymen, many many Australians have an aversion to pomp, sentimentality and tearful patriotism but also have a deep seated distrust in their government.

Plus you seriously misrepresented the gun laws it's both semiautomatics and automatics that are unobtainable, the only weapon you can reasonably purchase now are some bolt action rifles after showing purpose, also if you own one you give police the power of entry into your home whenever they like, without a warrant (i guess a moot point these days).

I'll leave you with two quotes;

"I don't pretend for a moment that this decision can prevent the recurrence of tragedies in the future...".
-- Prime Minister John Howard, The Australian, 11th May 1996, page 1

"It'll take a massacre in Tasmania before we get national gun laws."
-- NSW Premier Barry Unsworth 1987

As an Australian, I can say you're right about everything except the guns. If you're a private citizen and have a valid use for a rifle, it's just a matter of paperwork, always has been even before the buyback scheme. Which, by the way, was mostly about removing automatic weapons from the public - fair enough too; I highly doubt there's many legitimate reasons to fire hundreds of rounds per minute (some that were in the business of culling feral stock from helicopter had cause to complain though). Pistols are difficult, because apart from sport there's no practical reason to have one, although IIRC if you're part of a gun club I believe it isn't too much hassel if you use pistols that are kept at the club at all times.

This might appear odd to you, I guess it's a culture difference. You have an absolutely fucking scary culture with guns over there. In Australia, we automatically exclude the possibility of using a gun against a human. Writing "Self-defence" on the application form to obtain a gun license will guarantee you won't get to own one (legally). Unlike Americans, we don't believe guns are useful just because it's a gun. We acknowledge it's a lethal weapon which must be used with care. It is a priveledge, not a right. A liability, a responsibility. We acknowledge that not every random bastard on the street is going to be responsible and rational enough to engage in safe gun ownership. You must have a legitimate reason to own one, this includes agricultural and sporting applications. Letting people own a gun purely because "it's teh c00l" or "self protection" does not benefit society at all.

As for the smh article, the PM does not have absolutel control. Even if his legislation does get through, it is highly vulnerable to a high court challenge. One of the fundamental parts of our constitution is a separation of powers between the executive and judicial arms of the government. His new legislation expects the courts to become "servants to the government" by "assisting where necessary" with speedy issueing of warrants etc. even in cases where suspects may have no actual evidence (in the traditional sense) against them.

This is upsetting a lot of QCs (Queen's Council - top brass barristers) and a couple of state-level governments.

It is unlikely the judicial branch will take this lying down - this won't be the first time the government will be "disappointed" by the courts not doing their bidding.

We haven't heard the end of this: Anti-terror laws: 'unconstitutional' summit

...its simple. Australia is a shining light to freedom and democracy the world over. Why? Because we have aussie_a running around agitating the democratic process. No Patriot Act type laws in Australia is there. No sir. No US style reformation of the tax system here. No US style dismantling of the public health system. Gun laws. What guns? Hmmm.

.. it was stolen!

Customs Minister Chris Ellison will meet software developers and industry groups tomorrow after finding persistent bugs in the latest version of the Australian Customs Service's ambitious new import and export system. Most of version 3 of the system was delivered to developers last week for testing, but problems have persisted. "Customs is burning money like it is going out of style," one developer told Next.

Better a live (paying attention!) one than a DEAD one - like the argument you're presenting.

Ooo! Ooo! Mud Slinging, mud slinging! Never mind the fact that I corrected an outright incorrect statement, I'm actually "presenting a DEAD argument!" I love this logic! It's so screwed up, it would take a Scientologist to sort it out!

As for those little things called facts clouding your argument - you are absolutely correct! Must be why you're avoiding them.

Really? I'm avoiding facts? The facts are that the parent replied to another AC stating that "none of those people started a war with Iraq". The HARD FACTS of the vote record say differently. 77 members of Congress (including Kerry, Lieberman, and Clinton) all voted to give the President the authority to wage war. They didn't have to do that. They could have struck it down and ask the President for more info. But they didn't.

The FACT is that John Kerry then tried to get out of his vote. Not by apologizing for a mistake, but by stating that he "Voted against the War in Iraq." Except, he voted against the war in 1991, not 2002! Only after the truth came out did he backpedal and state that he was "duped." Which he then flip-flopped on again, stating, "Yes, I would have voted for the authority. I believe it was the right authority for a president to have."

So if it was the right decision, why didn't he and others vote to support the troops?


Before:
"But I don't think anyone in the Congress is going to not give our troops ammunition, not give our troops the ability to be able to defend themselves. We're not going to cut and run and not do the job." -- John Kerry on the $87 billion dollars spent to rebuild Iraq and support our troops in Iraq, 9/14/03

After:
"I'm proud to say that John (Edwards) joined me in voting against that $87 billion..." -- John Kerry, 7/12/04

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." -- John Kerry, 3/19/04

How the hell do you "vote for" something before you "vote against" something?

FACT: The Bush administration, along with their friend Blair presented false documents and BS information to persuade the vote to go their way.

This is, unfortunately, irrelevant. Unless you can prove that Bush and Blair knowing provided false documents, you've got no case. They could be just as duped as all those democrats screaming for war. If you can prove such an accusation, then I suggest you grab the ear of your local congress-critter. They would be happy to impeach the President.

Even so, I'm afraid that doesn't absolve congress of its responsibility. The US was not directly threatened by Iraq's possestion of WMDs. Either congress believed that Iraq would fund terrorists and was a threat to national security, or they didn't. Perhaps they were looking at these reports?

"Saddam Hussein would pay $US25,000 ($47,000) to the family
of each suicide bomber as an enticement for others to volunteer
for martyrdom in the name of the Palestinian people."

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/03/25/10170047 66310.html

"The party estimated that Iraq had paid out $35m to Palestinian
families since the current uprising began in September 2000."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2846365.stm

Votes that supported Bush's wargasm aren't exactly legitimately given when they had to be LIED TO to get them.

FACT: The people of the United States confirmed Bush's decision by voting him into office for a second term.

One (of many available!!) example - From the Downing Street Memo: Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through mil

I guess there's also a follow-up question:

In the states, are you allowed to steal both samples of blood to keep yourself innocent?

Many organisations and governments around the world have expressed these sorts of fears about GE.

Not long ago, the operators of Australia's only nuclear reactor expressed concern about GE.

Korea (both north and south) have expressed their concerns about it.

The Dutch have expressed concern.

Even in Russia they are nervous.

So far google has resisted censoring imagery, but how much longer can they hold out?

The /. crowd is one that's all for open-ness (and the public availability of imagery tends to favour this), but politics is not known for making logical decisions. It will probably take one major criminal incident (aka terrorist attack) to occur where there's proof of GE being used, at that point perhaps google will cave.

Personally I hope this never happens, but you can never tell what will happen...

here you go

Because your post was not speculation??

About half of the photographers I know (a good number) use digital exclusively. Now that Digital SLRs are good AND cheap, the others are all planning to move that way. And it isn't just the people I know, here's an outside link.

While photography isn't usually a life or death industry, it is 'mission critical' to tons of photographers, magazines, ad agencies, etc. etc. So I would say that your statement is incorrect.

I know I haven't touched a film camera in years, and neither have any of the other photographers at my place of work. In fact, we just made a big deal out of putting our last remaining film camera in a little glass case for posterity.

If navies start using these toys, then it wrecks the sea creatures' hearing, making survival (hunting, avoiding predators) impossible. In the worst case, the damage done can kill them outright. And not just in the immediate area, but for hundreds of miles around. Never mind Japanese whalers, the US navy could wipe out whole speices of whales overnight with this stuff if they decided to us it on a big scale.

This problem has been around for some time now: 1 2 3 4 5.

My question, though, is - WHY does the US need this shit ? I mean, how much does the US really rely on its navy these days for national security. Its not like Al Quaeda or even the Iranians/Syrians/North Koreans/[insert-this-weeks-axis-of-evil-member-her e] could do any conceivable damage to a US warship (unless maybe a suicide bomber managed to sneak onboard). Maybe the Chinese or Russians, but really, does the US really NEED this new level of naval capability with the technological lead it already has ?

Bill, AFAIK, doesn't hate Google. He just doesn't understand or agree with them

Ballmer, on the other hand tends to go a bit overboard.

Any other questions?

Unless you can prove that all the people who downloaded the work would never have paid for it, arguing that downloaders would not have bought the music does not stand.

In addition, I've read a number of articles that suggest that a non-negligible percentage of the stuff that people download would not have resulted in a lost sale. Furthermore, many people who commit copyright infringement via illegal downloads in fact *do* spend a lot of money -- according to this, 350% above average -- on legitimate purchases. So it is exceedingly unlikely that many of those downloads were lost sales.

Burden of proof's on you, pal.

-HJ

Any other questions?

Unless you can prove that all the people who downloaded the work would never have paid for it, arguing that downloaders would not have bought the music does not stand.

In addition, I've read a number of articles that suggest that a non-negligible percentage of the stuff that people download would not have resulted in a lost sale. Furthermore, many people who commit copyright infringement via illegal downloads in fact *do* spend a lot of money -- according to this, 350% above average -- on legitimate purchases. So it is exceedingly unlikely that many of those downloads were lost sales.

Burden of proof's on you, pal.

-HJ

Personally I'm much more scared of avian flu than terrorists...

At least one Government minister shares the same sentiments as you... don't worry, I'm sure all the rest are still paranoid about terrorism and refugees... (Also, I read that article in the newspapers here in Canberra. I don't know about where you are but it's fairly well-reported here.)

Best thing I've seen for implanted devices, such as cochlear implants is an article from two years ago by some japanese researchers than managed to build a fuel cell based on blood.

It mimics the processes of mitochondria in human cells, i.e. uses glucose and O2 to create some form of ionisation.

So why have a battery that expires in 12 years when you could just have something that is indeffinately powered by your own body processes, and lose a little weight in the process.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/03/10598492 78131.html

Incidently, BBN technologies worked with DARPA on ARPANET.

here's a copy I've done.

Pictures here

http://www.smh.com.au/media/2005/09/28/11278045094 63.html

Here, have a nice glass of milk while you ponder that.

(goddamn i should really learn to not post comments at 6am)

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/china-issues-new- rules-to-control-internet/2005/09/25/1127586740141 .html

Except there was an asshole who registered Linux and started charging companies who used this name in their products. That's what made Linus take legal action to protect his brainchild.

(...and here's the version of the post I clicked "submit" on, not the one I clicked "preview" on. Pretty sure it was my finger slip, not a CSS bug. Now to outwait the timer.)

Well, Ballmer did promise to fucking kill Google, did he not?

Careful who you throw that chair at, Monkeyboy. Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Goothulhu Menlo Park wgah'nagl fhtagn!

This story created something of a media sensation for a few days, with various stories of varying scientific relevance.

I have to say that it "arcs me up" to see the media treat this kind of simple science story with disdain and hype, trying NOT to understand and then explain the simple science involved.

In Australia, it is illegal to rip files to your iPod or other mp3 player. See http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/08/02/10914321 15074.html . I'd be interested to know what industry executives' children do not own such devices or use them illegally. I think if I got in trouble with these 'Destroyers of Public Privacy', I'd take the names of all the counsel and board members challenging me and then gather and table evidence of their childrens', spouses' (and even perhaps their own) abuses of copyrighted materials. Once the court throws the material out I'd distribute photographic evidence of these abuses to the media by donning a scape-goat costume and running around with my behind hanging out... unless there was a way to force them to sue their own children!

(tried to find US coverage of this story on Google News, but it seems the maintstream US media isn't interested ...)

A typical operation lasts for five or six days in the field, requiring each man to bring 22 litres of water, ammunition and packs that can weigh up to 90 kilograms, along with an M-4 carbine and a 9mm sidearm. Other missions can go on for 10 days.

Maybe next they can reduce the need to carry water by recycling urine!

News Ltd affiliates (tabloid bog paper) came out a day later with a full page story, photos, names.

The spirit of Fleet Street is alive and well and living in Sydney.

As far as they were concerned it was not for public consumption. End result is they get the bullet and the person (high up in the company???) who was responsible for any negative impact on the company gets off scott free. The terms scapegoat and shafted come to mind. I hope their legal action succeeds.

By my reading the exchange might even be a tongue in cheek exchange between two mates. Under the right circumstances, mates (using the Australian understanding of the word) can freely trade insults without offence.

It's hugely disappointing and unfunny. The sandwich looks pretty good though, better than the chicks (warning: catfight fantasy spoiler link.)

It's hugely disappointing and unfunny. The sandwich looks pretty good though, better than the chicks (warning: catfight fantasy spoiler link.)

Did you read the actual emails or just the summary? They sound like nasty little harpies who probably annoyed half the staff.

Sometimes management (and staff) is just waiting for the office bitches (male or female) to violate a policy so they can fire the annoying bickerers.

Or it could be overreaction, but I have a hard time believing a really valuable employee who is otherwise well-liked, hard-working, and useful would get fired for this.

Mmmm, that's a pretty good looking sandwich.

Slapped-up mirror of sorts here. Might be a little quicker (for US and European slashdotters) than the Aussie original. These two articles offer additional commentary and are good for a laugh.

Slapped-up mirror of sorts here. Might be a little quicker (for US and European slashdotters) than the Aussie original. These two articles offer additional commentary and are good for a laugh.

I agree, this is pretty stupid. The whole exchange of emails is here:

http://radar.smh.com.au/archives/2005/09/cutting_a _lawye.html

So now you can Sue People who don't buy and use your products. Because they didn't buy and use their products.

Yep. It's been done. Bus line sues women for car-pooling.

Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco warned rioters and looters late on Thursday that National Guard troops were under her orders to "shoot and kill" if needed to restore order.

"These troops are battle-tested. They have M-16s and are locked and loaded," she said. "These troops know how to shoot and kill and I expect they will."

This whole situation is making America look pathetic. You can send an army to 'liberate' another country, but you can't even help your own citizens when they need it.

From another article here:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/kazaa-ordere d-to-clamp-down-on-ripoffs/2005/09/05/112577245613 2.html

"Kazaa's owners would have to apply "maximum pressure" on existing users to upgrade their software to the new, filtered version."

I wonder how the court sees this as being implemented? and how they intend to measure that "maximum pressure" has been applied.

I dont know the architecture of Kazaa. Is it possible for Sharman to "force" a new version out? or could the old version continue to be used as always?

Also the full judgement can be found here:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/federal_ct/ 2005/1242.html

The picture of Ballmer in the article makes him look like a serial killer. He's just creepy.

It just looks a little odd because someone edited out the lightbulbs he was holding in each hand.

... And, being a Murdoch rag, it's not particularly well respected, either. I find the Sydney Morning Herald, aka the Sadly Moaning Horrid, to be a better paper all round, even if it does have a habit of riding particular bandwagons until the wheels fall off (*coughReneRivkincough*).

Right. You won't *have* to buy new hardware for Vista either, provided you don't intend to use many of Vista's features. This has been documented several times already.

"as stated elsewhere most BT users won't break your knees, crush your nuts in a vise or bust a cap in your ass if you go after them."

And neither will the warez groups and the Chinese DVD factory owners and the guys with the contacts at the studio who get the screeners. There's a HUGE reading comprehension issue here, folks -- you're reading "organized crime" and I guess you're thinking of the Italian-American mafia or something. You're smarter than that. You should understand that "organized crime" means just that: more than one person working in cooperation. RTFA if you'd like to learn more. I can't believe this post was modded "insightful."

Regardless of this, the feds bust warez groups, bootleg DVD operations and other organized piracy schemes

Here's an example, and another one, and another one, and another one.

It took me all of like two minutes with Google to find these.

Britain, Spain and Sweden showed the most improvement for increasing aid, while Japan and the United States gave the least relative to the size of their economies.

Instead of watered-down ZDNet thing, you should read the original Sydney Morning Herald interview.

ZDNet failed to see the importance of the following paragraph (so they just omitted that):

Asked whether he would support the model of paying for a sub-licence, Stallman said he was concerned over issues of naming only when they helped to focus attention on the freedom to change and redistribute software.
"In this particular case, though, the naming issue seems rather to distract attention from freedom, so I'd rather focus the attention back where it belongs," he said.

Without this, ZDNet article might give a false impression that Mr. Stallman is inconsistent (i.e., on one hand he says that the name is irrelevant, on the other hand he implies that the name is important, i.e. GNU/this GNU/that).