Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Aussie Net Filtering Trial Delayed

Posted by samzenpus on from the think-of-the-children dept.

hopejr writes "The Federal Opposition says it is not surprised the Government's mandatory internet filtering trial has been delayed. The trial, which was meant to begin today, has been postponed until mid-January 2009 and the internet service providers (ISPs) who will participate will be announced at the same time. ISPs iiNet and Optus both said yesterday they had not heard anything about their applications to participate in the trial, and doubted the Government would meet its own deadline."

58 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Proud to be an American... by tnok85 · · Score: 1

    Where at least I know I can break the law.

    1. Re:Proud to be an American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Both Australia and the USA were founded by criminals. Literally.

    2. Re:Proud to be an American... by shirro · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Australia's constitution was not made by criminals. It was written by a wealthy land owning elite. The criminals were their parents cheap labour. Australia did not exist until federation in 1901. Transportation of convicts ended in 1857.

      Prior to 1901 the states were self governing colonies. The colony of South Australia was settled by free settlers not convicts. People settled my state for religious freedom, to own land and for profit - not a convict in sight.

      The reason the Australian constitution is not as noble as the US constitution is that Australia was not founded by revolutionaries. We remained part of the British empire and inherited the attitudes and structures of England. The US adopted a republic based on the French model which celebrated liberty and equality.

      The filter is the result of a coalition between anti-liberal socialists and catholics. The ALP right faction is strongly influenced by catholicism and is socially conservative. The ALP left factions may have championed social change once, but it I suspect it was just a reaction to the conservatism of the times and they have no real commitment to individual freedom being socialists.

      So the ALP are just as crazy as the GOP religious right but far more dangerous as there is not a libertarian amongst them to stand up for freedom.

      The current government used to be a socially progressive, center left workers party but probably should change their name to the Christian Democrats as they are basically a front for Roman Catholicism these days.

    3. Re:Proud to be an American... by fractoid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Both Australia and the USA were founded by criminals. Literally.

      Which is why I clearly cannot take the drink in front of ME.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    4. Re:Proud to be an American... by plasmacutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually the US was founded by religious extremists which the british rightfully tried to get rid of.

      The descendents of those extremists, still equally extreme, continue to gain power and dismantle any progress we make as a nation toward social equality

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    5. Re:Proud to be an American... by infonography · · Score: 1

      Transportation to the American colonies just ended earlier then it did in Australia and to a far lesser extent as immigration came from many countries. It was far too easy to just walk away from service and live in a colony that didn't care for the practice. Sure that temporarily gave rise to more African Slaves. With regards to the North American ones it only amounted to 10% of the total trade to the west. Many of the African Slaves did the same thing. With the rise of industry slavery was doomed, It just became a negative return beyond the moral reasons.

      Score one for technology.

      --
      Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
    6. Re:Proud to be an American... by corstar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And both are still run by criminals!

    7. Re:Proud to be an American... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Transportation to the American colonies just ended earlier then it did in Australia and to a far lesser extent as immigration came from many countries.

      I think you're missing some punctuation in their somewhere .... do you mean:

      Transportation to the American colonies just ended earlier then it did in Australia -- and to a far lesser extent -- as immigration came from many countries.

      IOW, if the 'and to a far lesser extent' is parenthetical rather than essential, then, yes, you're right.

      Early America was settled by the British, but also by the French, Dutch, Spanish, Germans, etc. Most of the early settlers came here to find new opportunities -- make a good living, start a new life, etc.

      --
      My blog
    8. Re:Proud to be an American... by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 1

      Interesting. While the Puritans certainly could have been considered 'religious extremists' back in the time they settled here, they were, by far, not the majority.

      Most of the Founding Fathers weren't Puritans -- most weren't even Christian. Like many educated, affluent people, these men were influenced by the Age of Enlightenment, thus, many of them were Deists and Freemasons. Their influence is found in our founding documents -- the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The stuff about all men being created equal, etc., is straight out of Deist thought and philosophy.

      --
      My blog
    9. Re:Proud to be an American... by shirro · · Score: 1

      Actually the US was founded by religious extremists which the british rightfully tried to get rid of.

      I thought the US was founded by lawyers, merchants and plantation owners.

    10. Re:Proud to be an American... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      For a start, England was Transporting to America before Australia was colonised - and even while they transported to New South Wales and Tasmania.

      Secondly. The USA does not have "Liberty". What they have is an obsessive belief that they have "Liberty", and that everyone else in the world wants and needs their sort of "Liberty".

      The USA was actually founded by freeloaders - they wanted the British government to provide protection to their settlers against the natives, even when they had crossed boundaries beyond which they had been clearly told they would be given none, then took exception when told they'd have to pay for it.
      The only reason it went to war was because George III was a stubborn bastard that didn't like the idea that a bunch of colonists could make demands of him. If he'd simply said "fine, you don't want to pay, we'll withdraw all our troops and protection entirely", then things would have been very different.

    11. Re:Proud to be an American... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 3, Interesting

      With the rise of industry slavery was doomed, It just became a negative return beyond the moral reasons.

      On a recent trip to Charleston, South Carolina, I encountered some interesting views on slavery. I was taking a tour of an old plantation house ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middleton_Place ) and they were talking about their rice production before and after the Civil War. Before the war, they were able to produce quite a bit of rice. After the war, with slavery outlawed, they tried doing it using a "communal work" type of setup, but it wasn't profitable. Basically, once they had to pay their laborers, they couldn't turn a profit. It was interesting (to say the least) to hear slavery talked about in purely economic terms, as if there was no human suffering or moral quandaries involved. It was certainly different than the discussion you would have with someone from New York (like me) about slavery.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    12. Re:Proud to be an American... by donscarletti · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Which is unfortunate for Australia, since it means Australia did not have as noble a reason for setting up its own government as America did. Our constitution isn't based around Liberty.

      After European settlement, Australia was primarily inhabited by honest, law abiding colonists who were not sent there by force and did not flee seeking to practice any sort of new religion or ideology, but simply to make a good life for themselves on the land. Australia did not become independent in a violent ideological war over taxes but was given independence because all involved thought it could be governed better from Melbourne than London. We invented the secret ballot, we were the first country to give women the vote in the state level and second in the federal level. Australia's all about freedom, not as an ideal but as a lifestyle, to be able to make a good, fair life without harassment.

      The Australian constitution only defines the relationship between the states and the running of federal democracy. It has done this quite well but what it does not do is impose the will of those who have died a century ago on Australia today. Look at the US which you mentioned before (and which I'm sorry to bash), The US has the bill of rights but the thirteenth and fourteenth amendment is nowhere to be found. You can have free speech, firearms, freedom from billeting soldiers, protection from unreasonable searches etc. but until 3 amendments after it ends, you can own other people and until the next; black people aren't citizens. And bare in mind here, the nasty, oppressive British empire banned slavery ten years after American succession, the ideological US took four score and seven years to do the same. The original American view of citizenship was very close to the old "Civis Romanis Sum" school of thought: freedom should be absolute for the free, but those not entitled should be subject to the liberties of those who have them.

      In Australia, you are granted generally the same rights as in the US but by common law and acts of parliament, not by constitutional amendments. Sure, it gives the government latitude to do stupid things like this Internet filter. But the government in this country has ALWAYS censored pornography, we just got a lucky break for twenty years with the Internet but it's the same laws creeping onto another medium, not really a new development. Nude pictures aren't considered part of free speech in this country, it pretty much has to be related to politics or religion to be protected. But within this definition, we do have free speech in this country. With or without this Internet filter, I can still say on the Internet or out on the street "Fuck Australia, fuck Keven Rudd and fuck our troops serving in Afghanistan" and nobody will block me, nobody will arrest me and nobody will show up in a truck and kick my arse for being un-patriotic.

      I don't want this filter, I am embarrassed by this filter, I am writing to my local member about this filter and I will never vote for anyone who supports this filter. However, I still think there is a lot of silly hyperbole going around here about it.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    13. Re:Proud to be an American... by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 1

      What happened to the plantation owners? The lawyers and merchants still run government, but we seem to need a few more plantation owners in the mix to keep government sane.

    14. Re:Proud to be an American... by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      However, I still think there is a lot of silly hyperbole going around here about it.

      You know, I had a rather long-winded retort post written, but it's not worth the breath. I'll just say this: Whatever the silly hyperbole going on here about the Internet filter, there's an awful lot of silly hyperbole and cherry-picked "issues" in your post as well. If you want to do ANY comparison of nations, for any purpose, you need to do so in a much more thoughtful manner and with a much better and more complete understanding of BOTH of their histories than this post exhibited. I deleted the contents of my post for precisely this reason; because I do not have and will not claim a complete-enough understanding of Australian history, regardless of whether my actual points were factual.

      I like Australia; my best friends live there. Let's just try to hold ourselves to a more stringent degree of intellectual honesty.

    15. Re:Proud to be an American... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      "rightfully tried to get rid of"? This is the first time that I've heard persecution on basis of religion so blithely justified and accepted in a single phrase. Let me guess, you rooted for the Afrikaaners against Nelson Mandela, too, right?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    16. Re:Proud to be an American... by ozphx · · Score: 1

      *shrug* If you want to see who has the most criminals now, a quick check of wikipedia will tell you:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprisonment#Incarceration_rates_by_country

      Highest incarceration rate in the world. 5% of the world's population, and 25% of the world's imprisoned population. Land of the free? LOL!! USA... USA... etc

      Interestingly the Irish have the lowest incarcerations rates, presumably because they are too busy being drunk.

      --
      3laws: No freebies, no backsies, GTFO.
    17. Re:Proud to be an American... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      You got a different bunch of extremists after 1906. I don't think any of the troublesome groups can be blamed on the early settlers. Mormons come somewhere in between in time but I wouldn't call them extreme, and scientologists came a lot later but I wouldn't call them a religeon.

      Australia has (had?) the Magnificant Meal which was a fairly nasty cult designed for the personal power of the founder, who I think is now in jail for a very long list of fraud and theft offences. We also have the "Exclusive Bretheren" which appears to all be about segregation and control and unfortunately has a lot of money to spend on financing election campaigns (which is odd because they forbid their members from voting). From their point of view I would be a doubly evil bastard by using a computer and using a copmputer to say something about them. They are actually one of the groups that helped Feilding get elected and to keep Feilding happy the government is proposing this stupid filter. IMHO for it to be seen as a sucess it doesn't actually have to work, it just has to do something to convince Feilding that it works. It's ugly and grubby politics - this stupid filter is just a bribe to allow an idiot to get more money from a bunch of really nasty luddites.

    18. Re:Proud to be an American... by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      there's an awful lot of silly hyperbole and cherry-picked "issues" in your post as well.

      The parent said Australia was not founded upon freedom like the US was. Whether comparing the moral history of two countries proves anything in todays society is another question, but I felt that the question had been asked and someone should discuss it a bit better than it had been in this thread.

      I'm not sure how many issues I brought up. As for the factuality of this "issue" I did bring up; is the Fourteenth amendment in the bill of rights or not? If not, then who were the other ten written to protect? Did or did not the man who wrote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." own slaves?

      I think that Americans as a general rule have a slightly warped picture of their own founding. Many Americans picture the British Empire of 1775 as being run by a king, rather than the House of Commons and an elected Prime Minister. Many Americans feel that the thirteen colonies did not already have a large amount of self government. Many Americans feel that people like Thomas Jefferson had a view on freedom which extended to all Americans rather than just land owners. If these were true, then it would stand to reason that they idolise their founders. But in reality, they weren't men ahead of their time, they were men of their time, just like us all. America gained independence so as not to pay tax to an external government and to keep all decisions closer to home, much the same as Australia. This is not in any way ignoble but it was mainly practical rather than ideological. Both the British Empire at that time and the United States of America at that time were flawed democracies, known for upholding the rights of some and not of others, succession was not really a step in either direction.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    19. Re:Proud to be an American... by Shadon+Oufrayor · · Score: 1

      We invented the secret ballot

      You may have been the first to use it for elections, however it was invented in the coffee houses of England where the patrons would vote on topical issues.

    20. Re:Proud to be an American... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      It wasn't stolened, honest, it was founded!

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    21. Re:Proud to be an American... by quenda · · Score: 1

      Basically, once they had to pay their laborers, they couldn't turn a profit.

      Wasn't that due laregly to competition for labor from new sources?

      If the Confederates had banned slavery without being invaded by the US, and maintained emigration controls, their economy might have reformed a lot more smoothly.

      Slave labor is always inefficient. Slavery was less about reduced wages than bringing in labor that didn't previously exist. Plantations in Africa didn't need to buy slaves as they could hire the existing locals.

    22. Re:Proud to be an American... by ignavus · · Score: 1

      We ... inherited the attitudes and structures of England.

      Only in part. We have never had a true aristocracy, with dukes and earls and stuff. We left behind a lot of England's traditional baggage, just as America did in the 1700s. Consequently, we had a more flexible social structure without the full-on classes of British society, and with a more democratic political structure (we pioneered secret ballots, women's vote, etc).

      Australia was never just a slice of England transplanted to the southern hemisphere. There was a degree of filtering going on, resulting in a simpler, more dynamic society than "back home" - and one more isolated from world affairs.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    23. Re:Proud to be an American... by ignavus · · Score: 1

      I can still say on the Internet or out on the street "Fuck Australia, fuck Keven Rudd and fuck our troops serving in Afghanistan" and nobody will block me, nobody will arrest me and nobody will show up in a truck and kick my arse for being un-patriotic.

      Unless you are at a sporting event against New Zealand. Supporting Australia against New Zealand IS your patriotic duty. Running down Australia in any other context is allowable, and even compulsory on occasion.

      --
      I am anarch of all I survey.
    24. Re:Proud to be an American... by kaos07 · · Score: 1

      Which is why, of course, the current Prime Minister and the majority of the caucus are Anglican.

    25. Re:Proud to be an American... by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      So what exactly are you to do to those who preach persecution of others.

      In this case, you direct the same persecution toward them to marginalize them

      this works like the military phalanx system, you send equal force in the opposite direction and nullify it.

      Sometimes two wrongs do make a right, or is it really wrong to marginalize the intolerant?

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    26. Re:Proud to be an American... by ZmeiGorynych · · Score: 1

      The civil war took care of those, I'm afraid...

    27. Re:Proud to be an American... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 1

      Honestly, I only know what I was told about the subject from the tour guide during the half hour tour. She made it seem like the plantation thrived during slavery but couldn't turn a profit during the post-slavery "communal work" setup. It wasn't spoken outright, but heavily implied that having to pay their laborers wages was a strain on the plantation's resources. They were still quite proud that the Middletons were among the first to join the Confederate side also.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    28. Re:Proud to be an American... by ErikZ · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've never seen any kind of god-based religious extremist try anything of the sort.

      I'm not referring to the communists, socialists, vegetarians though. They're always trying to push their beliefs on others.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    29. Re:Proud to be an American... by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Actually, I've never seen any kind of god-based religious extremist try anything of the sort.

      -Lifers
      -evangelicals who destroyed the worldwide economy by putting a potted plant..a shrub if you will.. in charge of the world's largest consumer market.
      -the mormon church (prop 8 anyone?)

      that's just a small, short list off the top of my head, and my mind and body are severely addled by illness atm.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  2. OMG! !news by 278MorkandMindy · · Score: 1

    Surprising really. With all the effort gone to "think of the children" (read : We need your vote so will go along with a scheme that no-one thinks will work), it has been delayed?

  3. On the first day of X-mas... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    On the first day of Christmas the government brought me... A time extension for my isp. I must have faith in my ISP, iinet. Help me iinet, you're my only hope. I have around 20 days to download like the wind, then my 40 gig on peak - 60 gig off peak internet goes to hell and I need to start thinking about moving to... England...?

    1. Re:On the first day of X-mas... by Concerned+Onlooker · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nope. England is getting nearly as bad. I'm thinking Antarctica. Time to build a new civilization based on 21st century evolved values, not 16th century ones.

      --
      http://www.rootstrikers.org/
    2. Re:On the first day of X-mas... by Samah · · Score: 1

      Nah I think you want an underwater city like Rapture.

      --
      Homonyms are fun!
      You're driving your car, but they're riding their bikes there.
    3. Re:On the first day of X-mas... by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Nope. England is getting nearly as bad. I'm thinking Antarctica. Time to build a new civilization based on 21st century evolved values, not 16th century ones.

      canada.

      Throttling, but not censorship. Liberal copyright laws, and a heavy weight copyright reform lobbyist with the ear of the newspapers and MSM.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    4. Re:On the first day of X-mas... by Pichu0102 · · Score: 1

      Good luck. If you tried that, I'm pretty sure most other countries would bomb you to nonexistence. Can't have the proles getting uppity and thinking they can form their own country where they aren't drained by the upper class.

    5. Re:On the first day of X-mas... by Xiroth · · Score: 1

      Remember, the trials are not going to be live, so it shouldn't affect you as a normal customer. Hopefully those trials will be the last we hear of this.

    6. Re:On the first day of X-mas... by Hucko · · Score: 1

      But will Holland accept us?

      --
      Semi-automatic amateur armchair Australian philosopher; conjecture ready at any moment...
  4. There are other ways of suppressing information... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This just in from Guido's blog, premier political blog in the UK.

    There is some rumour about a big political operator's son having his e-mail hacked. Minor story about a criminal act. And the lawyers have just slapped a writ on all the newspapers and bloggers forbidding them from mentioning this. Luckily, Guido is not so easily cowed....http://www.order-order.com/2008/12/up-yours-carter-ruck.html

    Freedom demands that there should be a high traffic on this attempt to suppress news, so slashdot and spread all you can....

  5. Merry Christmas by aaron+alderman · · Score: 1

    Now that's one Christmas gift I'm happy to get!

  6. Temporary reprieve, but by DaBookshah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    We need to ensure we have Conroys head on a stake when he comes up for re-election, and we need to make sure everyone knows why, too.

    1. Re:Temporary reprieve, but by corstar · · Score: 1

      Hell yeah! It's time to cut a few tall poppies down starting with these corrupt assholes. Does anyone remember Comrade Kevin promising a broadband initiative during his campaign? This filter was what he was promising! Fuck the government. They have far too much power in this country...

    2. Re:Temporary reprieve, but by TheSeer2 · · Score: 1

      Why only Conroy? It's not like he's a rogue minister pushing this against his party's will.

    3. Re:Temporary reprieve, but by TheSeer2 · · Score: 1

      Don't you get it! NBN = FASTER. FILTER = SLOW. They balance each other out! We can maintain the status quo, and for only several billion dollars! It's a bargain!

    4. Re:Temporary reprieve, but by Xiroth · · Score: 1

      Good luck: Conroy is a senate-based minister - he'd be pretty close to the top of his party's state list, which means that you'd have to vote out everyone under him on the state's Labor senate list before you could get him. You'd be looking at a shift of something like 35-40% of the vote.

      That's the downside to proportional representation - you can't remove individuals unless they're from a small party/independent.

    5. Re:Temporary reprieve, but by ian_from_brisbane · · Score: 1

      Yeah I was thinking along the same lines, but then I saw him tell Telstra to f*** off with regard to the National Broadband Network, which was a good call.

      Still, no point having a good NBN if it's censored.

  7. When will you learn? by kramer2718 · · Score: 1

    When will you Aussie's stand up for your rights and oust that lout Mugabe. Ohh, wait. That's some other commonwealth country. Who's your dictator again?

    --
    http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
    1. Re:When will you learn? by fractoid · · Score: 1

      We get to choose the face every 3 years. The policies, not so much, but it keeps the sheepulous happy and the government generally doesn't shoot at you or lock you up unless you're misbehaving.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    2. Re:When will you learn? by shirro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and the government generally doesn't shoot at you or lock you up unless you're misbehaving.
      So, it's like in North Korea, then.

      More like the US really but with funny accents.

      Oh, wait, no! They DO shoot you and lock you up for nothing in the US.

      So yeah, North Korea. So ronery and sadry arone.

  8. Cool by suckmysav · · Score: 3, Interesting

    So Optarse are volunteering for the trial eh?

    I couldn't ask for a better test case really. Those cretins are so goddamn incompetent that they have not a hope in hell of getting it working to an acceptable level.

    Roll on the trial I say!

    --
    "You can't fight in here, this is the war room!"
  9. Oh great my internet is going to go down. by upuv · · Score: 1

    An in line filter. Well all I see is a massive slow down and halt. Witch is soon followed by a renewed increase in encrypted traffic.

    This thing is going to have a dramatic impact on Aussie commerce.

    This is such an ill founded idea and complete waste of tax payers funds. This is simply going to start an arms race that the government and the ISP have little chance of winning.

    Note in Aus that most Internet plans have byte limit caps. Thus the ISP's have little interest in being in a commanding position of this arms race.

    All this is going to do is create a harbor where highly skilled individuals are going to create increasing harder to detect traffic. Which of course is going to ultimately result in increasing clandestine illegal traffic.

    All I got to say is this is this is 100% the fault of business not being able to adapt to the capabilities of the Internet. P2P being one of the greatest advances. P2P is easily the greatest example of a missed opportunities. People tried to but the fearful mega-corp entities out there simple curled up in tight ball under there desks and ordered in the legal swat teams.

  10. Re:Ho ho ho! by Teun · · Score: 1
    Class!

    I just pitty that zombie with an offtopic mod.

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  11. Re:There are other ways of suppressing information by igb · · Score: 1

    If Zac Goldsmith is a big political operator, I'd hate to see what a small one was.

  12. This will never work by Techmeology · · Score: 1

    Censoring The Internet (without enormous economic losses) does not work. Here's why: Step 1: Introduce content filters that work on HTTP only. They filter only "extreme stuff". Anti-Step 1: Use a simple web proxy based in another country to see what you want. Step 2: Block access to web proxies and similar sites Anti-Step 2: Use your own proxy server - based in another country, on another port. Step 3: Block access to all ports except port 80 Anti-Step 3: Create a redundant proxy mechanism that encrypts and decrypts the site to be beyond filterability - again the servers are in another country. Step 4: Make the internet available only between computers in your country/not at all. Anti-Step 4: Huge economic losses due to inability to trade effectively with other nations, and a secret underground internet society of DOOM! Short(ish) answer: in a democratic country, there would be outrage long before The Internet was effectively censored. Once this has happened, you've got a Nazi style nation. Make your conclusions from this as you will.

    --
    Excuse for why is your room always messy?
  13. I for one am glad I'm an American. by HyperNull · · Score: 1

    This is my computer. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    It is my life. I must master it as I must master my life. Without me, my computer is useless.
    Without my computer, I am useless.
    I must program my computer true. I must hack faster than the enemy who is trying to kill me.
    I must hack him before he hacks me.
    I will.
    My computer and I know that what counts in war is not the lines we write, the spread of our worms or the chaos we make.
    We know that it is the hits that count.
    We will hit.
    My computer is human, even as I am human, because it is my life.
    Thus, I will learn it as a brother.
    I will learn its weaknesses, its strengths, its parts, its accessories, its keyboard and its monitor.
    I will keep my computer clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready.
    We will become part of each other.
    Before God I swear this creed.
    My computer and I are the defenders of the internet.
    We are the masters of our enemy.
    We are the saviors of my life.
    So be it, until victory is the internet's and there is no enemy.

  14. Re:Ho ho ho! by badkarmadayaccount · · Score: 1

    Not really in the same situation, but even the obsessive, ADHD-addled highschooler here just felt the real spirit of slashdot. This is better than Christmas. This is home, my^H^Hour home. Cheers!

    BTW, do you like whiskey or vodka?

    --
    I know tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack.
  15. Recursive hypocrisy? by Xenographic · · Score: 1

    > So what exactly are you to do to those who preach persecution of others. In this case, you direct the same persecution toward them to marginalize them

    Since you're preaching persecution of others, it's okay if we do that to you, right? Or is this one of those things that's only bad when other people do it?

    1. Re:Recursive hypocrisy? by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      > So what exactly are you to do to those who preach persecution of others. In this case, you direct the same persecution toward them to marginalize them

      Since you're preaching persecution of others, it's okay if we do that to you, right? Or is this one of those things that's only bad when other people do it?

      When a foreign army is invading YOUR town, "thou shalt not kill" goes out the window.

      Religious extremists work diligently to persecute others. Persecution of them is the rightful response.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!