Is this Attorney-General could be the most disliked Attorney-General in Australian History? Does she think throwing the public a morsel will distract them as she beats them to death with a stick? Good luck with that.
The Google Play store does not say whether or not a 'free' app contains ads - especially the distracting blinking banner ads. It's fine for developers to do this and users may accept it rather than buying the app, but developers should disclose it up front. I get sick of downloading apps only to delete them. Plus many 'free' apps want access to your phone state, so they can see your phone number, who you call, and when you call them. Sneaky:
And take the children's drawing game which server up adult ads
Hannah-Siobhan - September 13, 2012 - Good basic game. Shame for the adverts my kids can click on, needs to have a lock screen option.
kristen - September 29, 2012 - Not kid friendly ads - Good time waster for kids, but the ads contain mature content, I saw buttocks yesterday...
Laura - September 19, 2012 - Version 4.0.1 - Disappointed - They show poor judgement with their advertising. With inappropriate pictures I cannot let my children use this app. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=virtualgs.kidspaint
> Except that swapping batteries might be a bit tricky,
Apple would like to get behind this wonderful new technology. Now we must find a judge who will let us patent Sugar. Muhahahahah!
You don't need to wait for a MOOC to learn
on
The Rage For MOOCs
·
· Score: 1
You don't need a course to be a "MOOC". In America many Universities offer videos of their lectures and some offer notes and exercises too. Buy the textbook - secondhand, show some gritm put aside the time and you can learn anything. If you get stuck there are forums like 'mad scientists' where people will help you. Connect with others interested in learning the same thing. If you get stuck on a particular concept, check another textbook for an alternate explanation or check out Kahn Academy. Many tutors post short clips explaining concepts on Youtube too.
Some people ask if you get credit for these. Of course you don't, and I question the motives of those people: If you're more interested in buying a piece of paper, then buy the piece of paper. But if you want to learn, yes, it can be done.
Can I add: A Pox on Australian degree factories (also known as 'Universities') who won't make their content available online because they are more interested in squeezing every last cent out of their students. The idea of accidentally helping someone terrifies them.
The Snopes article says Romney was perhaps joking though it isn't definitive.
The irony is palpable. Romney's camp is accusing his opponents of misquoting him, but the centerpiece of Romney's campaign against Obama is a misquote of Obama saying "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" where they cut out the first part so it says "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" - something very different.
Romney's camp can't have it both ways: If they want to run on the Obama misquote then how about they accept Romney doesn't understand why aircraft windows don't open.
And as usual, the real issues remain pushed to the sideline as too hard for an electorate who don't have an attention span that lasts long than a soundbite.
Someone tell Woz we Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights and the government is busy taking away the few rights we have. Does anyone else think one of the reasons the gov't is pushing the NBN is because it provides a bottle-neck for them to snoop on us?
People think they have Privacy Laws and the Privacy Commissioner protecting them. They don't. Like much the government does to reassure the public, they are deliberately weak and there for just for PR value. If you ever try and use them you will find they have all the whipping power of a wet lettuce leaf: The worst thing the Commissioner can do is write a letter to a company breaching your privacy saying "Please don't do that." There is no fine. http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/youre-being-more-closely-watched-20120916-260ko.html
Users thing up new ways to make Twitter useful and Twitter management keep coming up with new bans.
Twitter needs to recognise that their users will do far better at building their business then some
tyrannical beancounter at corporate HQ will. If Twitter don't get the message, they will end up driving
users to other platforms and Twitter will end up another Myspace.
Homework for the reader: Rewrite that in 140 characters.
I'm looking forward to The Hobbit, but instead of licking the screen at every trailer, picture, snippet or press interview I'm going to ignore avoid looking at any of it, walk into the cinema when it finally comes out and be pleasantly surprised.
> It’s apparent that the people filing the suit don’t understand the technology or the products enough to realize that Rackspace Cloud Servers and GitHub are completely different products from different companies."
The problem is that if you are sued for patent infringement - regardless of the merits of the case - you are up for $2M in lawyers fees and court costs to defend it. Recently a judge speaking out against trolls said $3M - $5M. If you're a small company or worse - a lone developer - that will send you bankrupt. The suit will most likely be filed in a troll-friendly court district such as the East District of Texas as this case was. The judges in E.D. Texas there are notoriously pro-troll and won't dismiss even the most stupid of cases. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/405259/a-haven-for-patent-pirates/
Trolling causes a lot of damage for innovators elsewhere in the US, but it is huge source of revenue for E.D. Texas. Congressmen from these other districts need to gang up against the Texas trolls and Congressmen:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/#state_tn
> goes only to show how broken the Patent system is.
Patents are supposed to be novel, useful and not obvious. This patent seems obvious. According to a law lecturer, the mere fact the USPTO has granted a patent doesn't mean you have a valid patent: It also has to be tested in the courts. Only if it is upheld does this mean you have a valid patent.
The problem is this system is easily exploited. A USPTO examiner is supposed to eliminate patents which fail the above tests, but you can overwhelm a USPTO examiner just by giving them a lot of documentation. I have seen this done. It's easier for the examiner just to grant it and let the courts figure it out. The problem is as we saw in the Apple v Samsung case the jury assumes just because the USPTO has granted the patents they *are* valid. It's also expensive: It costs about $2M to attack or defend a patent and takes a lot of employee time when they could be working instead. In the US even if you successfully defend a patent attack you usually don't get your legal fees reimbursed, so that $2M is gone forever. This will send a smaller businesses broke. Is that really good for innovation?
Microsoft's patent here seems obvious and should have never been granted. The same goes for the intuitive tablet / smart phone operations which Apple patented: Give one of these devices to anyone who hasn't used one before and they quickly figure out which gestures work. The "intutive" nature of this means it is by definition obvious.
The US patent system... now forced down the world's throat thanks to aggressive lobbying of foreign governments by US diplomats bringing shiny beads and mirrors... means it has been inflicted upon the world, and is hampering innovation everywhere. Even Google has spoken against it, but big companies are forced into a position where they must spent millions on stupid patents (which shouldn't hold up in court) just to get into a better bargaining positions against the patent trolls and Apples of the world.
But make no mistake: The USPTO is the patent troll's friend. Not just due to their lazy examinations, but because they have also increased fee to discourage people from asking for bogus patents to be re-examined. That was the reason they gave when they did this: they are trying to make less work for themselves caused by their own sloppiness in the first place!
The only solution: Tell your congressman and senator to stop this madness now and that there will be consequences at the ballot box if they don't. A tall ask, but they are the only people with the power to change it.
As a desktop Windows developer I was disappointed at how Microsoft has abandoned its desktop roots and users for a single-minded pursuit of the iOS/Android smartphone market.The alienation of their existing customer base has been made very clear to Microsoft. So has the widespread dissatisfaction with Metro 8, but no one at Microsoft is listening to us or even feigning concern.
If Microsoft and hangers on like AMD want to bash their heads into a brick wall that's their choice, but they're not taking us with them. We read the writing on the wall and have switched our desktop efforts to Android tablets. Thanks for the push, Microsoft.
>Finally, I just love how you left out this part.
>> We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest.
>Which is key to what is being discussed here.
Where are you getting your information from? Don't read it off another government web site. Ask a journalist instead. The government doesn't need to censor the media because it self-censors. Journalists are very restricted in what they can report: If they publish or posses a leaked government document they can be arrested and jailed. A lot of information is withheld from them: The Attorney-General blacked out 90% of that web snooping report. If they report something that later turns out not to be true they can end up sued for defamation even if they did every check they could and even if they honestly believed it were true. You can never be sure what someone else tells you is 100% true, so they can't take the chance, and so don't report on it. Journalists are surrounded by lawyers who will not take even a remote risk of breaking Australia's defamation laws, so you the public don't get to find this stuff out. Australia is not like the US. Reality is more complicated than the rosy picture you have been painted.
This was a good series but is no longer available online: http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/554/Law-and-Disorder
>However the constitution does specifiy the right to democratic elections and the High Court has rulled that this means political speach can't be censored.
I'm glad the high court ruled "implied free speech" instead of no free speech at all!!! but that's a real stretch isn't it? That interpretation was very controversial. The Australian Civil Liberties Union:
http://www.angelfire.com/folk/aclu/judges_have_failed.htm
The govenment tell us we need free speech for our democratic elections, then limit it only to "constructive free speech that won't harm someone". There's a lot of BS on that IMMI page like not censoring the press (a journo with a government document can be jailed even if they don't publish it) and Freedom of assembly: see 'Marching Permits'. Yes, you have free speech, but a limited version of it nothing like the US. Don't use it too hard or you mighty break it.;-) http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm
" Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write... ",
Sounds good, but you can do anything within the bounds of the law. Here's an equivalent sentence I just made up:-
" Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to kill anyone they like, at any time..." (which is true, assuming there's a law that says a soldier is allowed to kill someone else, and the "Australian" in question in my sentence happens to be one, and feel like killing an enemy...)
Their quote continues:
" Free speech comes from facts, not rumours "
Which I could legitimately re-write as so:-
" Australia has laws to prevent you from saying anything you cannot prove. You are not free to spread rumours which you suspect but cannot prove because you are missing information (more on that below)." And God helps anyone who gives you that missing information!
And more:
" and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. "
LOL. You have the right to speak out, so long as you are constructive to your opponents and do not harm them.
Sounding less and less "free" to me...
It continues:
" There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. "
At what point do we draw the line and drop the word "Free" entirely I wonder?
And it ends with a doozy:
" Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others" (even if they deserve it!)
So basically, you can do anything that's as fucked up and stupid as you like, because nobody is allowed to tell anyone else about it, because it might harm you...
James Ashby who is now facing 10 years in prison: "Mr Slipper's lawyers suggested James Ashby could have breached sections of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, which prohibits public servants from publishing or communicating internal documents without authorisation." Free speech my arse
Farah (a footballer) has demanded new laws and the Prime Minister (a lawyer) and Attorney-General (also a lawyer) agreed. It took journalist John Birmingham to point out to them there are already laws against this: Section 474.17 of the Commonwealth criminal code creates an offense, punishable by imprisonment for three years, of using a carriage service, and yes the internet counts, in such a way that a reasonable person would consider it “menacing, harassing or offensive”.. People have gone to jail. What more do they want?
http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/time-to-take-a-deep-breath-before-jumping-on-trolls-20120910-25o81.html
> Absent some extraordinary evidence to the contrary, it's quite reasonable to assume that the purchase price of a Kindle would trend towards its marginal cost, minus whatever per-device ad and sales revenue Amazon expects.
Perhaps they could make revenue some other way. The Kindle could even be an ideal format for selling eBooks. Oh wait...
Because ads break your concentration. That is after all what they are designed to do. In this case every time you reach for your damned Kindle. Letting people pay an 'unlocking fee' to get rid of them is a much better idea.
> The commission says its current contractual obligations love of money forbid the use of such rival technology.
Fixed that for you.
> "The TLC is eager to pave the way for taxi riders to take advantage of the most up-to-date technology, including smartphone apps that may help passengers locate available taxicabs more quickly," said TLC chairman, "once we work out how to get a piece of the action".
Oh wham!
All over the world taxi licenses earn government ridiculous amounts of money. The poor bastards that drive the cabs see little of that, with the licences purchased by wealthy investors. Government workers (or quasi-government commissions) forget their mission is to ensure the public has access to taxis. Unfortunately whenever large sums of money are waved under a government workers nose they focus on getting some for themselves. Sure they can't legally pocket it themselves, but organizations bringing in cash get star treatment and some of that cash hangs around as benefits for government workers. https://www.npr.org/2011/11/15/142301617/nyc-taxi-medallions-fetch-unbelievable-returns
Slashdot Mirror
Is this Attorney-General could be the most disliked Attorney-General in Australian History? Does she think throwing the public a morsel will distract them as she beats them to death with a stick? Good luck with that.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/politics/roxons-calls-on-slippers-crudities-show-questionable-judgment-20121017-27rgz.html
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/10/18/how-not-to-launch-a-public-debate-by-the-a-gs-department/
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/10/20/asio-reels-in-a-g-line-on-illegal-fishing-hook-line-and-sinker/
The Google Play store does not say whether or not a 'free' app contains ads - especially the distracting blinking banner ads. It's fine for developers to do this and users may accept it rather than buying the app, but developers should disclose it up front. I get sick of downloading apps only to delete them. Plus many 'free' apps want access to your phone state, so they can see your phone number, who you call, and when you call them. Sneaky:
And take the children's drawing game which server up adult ads
Hannah-Siobhan - September 13, 2012 - Good basic game. Shame for the adverts my kids can click on, needs to have a lock screen option.
kristen - September 29, 2012 - Not kid friendly ads - Good time waster for kids, but the ads contain mature content, I saw buttocks yesterday...
Laura - September 19, 2012 - Version 4.0.1 - Disappointed - They show poor judgement with their advertising. With inappropriate pictures I cannot let my children use this app.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=virtualgs.kidspaint
> Except that swapping batteries might be a bit tricky,
Apple would like to get behind this wonderful new technology. Now we must find a judge who will let us patent Sugar. Muhahahahah!
You don't need a course to be a "MOOC". In America many Universities offer videos of their lectures and some offer notes and exercises too. Buy the textbook - secondhand, show some gritm put aside the time and you can learn anything. If you get stuck there are forums like 'mad scientists' where people will help you. Connect with others interested in learning the same thing. If you get stuck on a particular concept, check another textbook for an alternate explanation or check out Kahn Academy. Many tutors post short clips explaining concepts on Youtube too.
Some people ask if you get credit for these. Of course you don't, and I question the motives of those people: If you're more interested in buying a piece of paper, then buy the piece of paper. But if you want to learn, yes, it can be done.
http://ocw.mit.edu/
http://webcast.berkeley.edu/
http://ocw.uci.edu/
http://www.youtube.com/education?category=University
Some universities only make the podcasts available only on ITunes, but there are alternatives to Apple's walled garden: http://www.copytrans.net/copytransmanager.php
Can I add: A Pox on Australian degree factories (also known as 'Universities') who won't make their content available online because they are more interested in squeezing every last cent out of their students. The idea of accidentally helping someone terrifies them.
How about "Moe"?
The Snopes article says Romney was perhaps joking though it isn't definitive.
The irony is palpable. Romney's camp is accusing his opponents of misquoting him, but the centerpiece of Romney's campaign against Obama is a misquote of Obama saying "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" where they cut out the first part so it says "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" - something very different.
Romney's camp can't have it both ways: If they want to run on the Obama misquote then how about they accept Romney doesn't understand why aircraft windows don't open.
And as usual, the real issues remain pushed to the sideline as too hard for an electorate who don't have an attention span that lasts long than a soundbite.
> "It would be awesome to have a real time camera feed from his helmet."
Hopefully out of respect to his family the news channels will edit out the last minute.
Someone tell Woz we Australia doesn't have a Bill of Rights and the government is busy taking away the few rights we have. Does anyone else think one of the reasons the gov't is pushing the NBN is because it provides a bottle-neck for them to snoop on us?
Choose: 1. Freedom and ADSL2+ or 2. the NBN
I pick 1.
People think they have Privacy Laws and the Privacy Commissioner protecting them. They don't. Like much the government does to reassure the public, they are deliberately weak and there for just for PR value. If you ever try and use them you will find they have all the whipping power of a wet lettuce leaf: The worst thing the Commissioner can do is write a letter to a company breaching your privacy saying "Please don't do that." There is no fine. http://www.theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/youre-being-more-closely-watched-20120916-260ko.html
Add to that Nicola Roxon's plans to snoop on Australians Internet Usage. Do you really trust public servants to keep your private that information secret? The only privacy they care about is hiding their mistakes from public. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/national/police-fight-to-keep-corby-secrets-20120922-26dni.html
As for your privacy, they don' think you should have any: http://au.ibtimes.com/articles/380194/20120904/ag-nicola-roxon-bats-data-retention-laws.htm
I suggest we replace Bill's icon not with a generic suit, but with a chair.
And we can replace Apple's logo with a generic law suit.
Users thing up new ways to make Twitter useful and Twitter management keep coming up with new bans. Twitter needs to recognise that their users will do far better at building their business then some tyrannical beancounter at corporate HQ will. If Twitter don't get the message, they will end up driving users to other platforms and Twitter will end up another Myspace.
Homework for the reader: Rewrite that in 140 characters.
I'm looking forward to The Hobbit, but instead of licking the screen at every trailer, picture, snippet or press interview I'm going to ignore avoid looking at any of it, walk into the cinema when it finally comes out and be pleasantly surprised.
> It’s apparent that the people filing the suit don’t understand the technology or the products enough to realize that Rackspace Cloud Servers and GitHub are completely different products from different companies."
The problem is that if you are sued for patent infringement - regardless of the merits of the case - you are up for $2M in lawyers fees and court costs to defend it. Recently a judge speaking out against trolls said $3M - $5M. If you're a small company or worse - a lone developer - that will send you bankrupt. The suit will most likely be filed in a troll-friendly court district such as the East District of Texas as this case was. The judges in E.D. Texas there are notoriously pro-troll and won't dismiss even the most stupid of cases. http://www.technologyreview.com/news/405259/a-haven-for-patent-pirates/
Trolling causes a lot of damage for innovators elsewhere in the US, but it is huge source of revenue for E.D. Texas. Congressmen from these other districts need to gang up against the Texas trolls and Congressmen: http://www.house.gov/representatives/#state_tn
> goes only to show how broken the Patent system is.
... means it has been inflicted upon the world, and is hampering innovation everywhere. Even Google has spoken against it, but big companies are forced into a position where they must spent millions on stupid patents (which shouldn't hold up in court) just to get into a better bargaining positions against the patent trolls and Apples of the world.
Patents are supposed to be novel, useful and not obvious. This patent seems obvious. According to a law lecturer, the mere fact the USPTO has granted a patent doesn't mean you have a valid patent: It also has to be tested in the courts. Only if it is upheld does this mean you have a valid patent.
The problem is this system is easily exploited. A USPTO examiner is supposed to eliminate patents which fail the above tests, but you can overwhelm a USPTO examiner just by giving them a lot of documentation. I have seen this done. It's easier for the examiner just to grant it and let the courts figure it out. The problem is as we saw in the Apple v Samsung case the jury assumes just because the USPTO has granted the patents they *are* valid. It's also expensive: It costs about $2M to attack or defend a patent and takes a lot of employee time when they could be working instead. In the US even if you successfully defend a patent attack you usually don't get your legal fees reimbursed, so that $2M is gone forever. This will send a smaller businesses broke. Is that really good for innovation?
Microsoft's patent here seems obvious and should have never been granted. The same goes for the intuitive tablet / smart phone operations which Apple patented: Give one of these devices to anyone who hasn't used one before and they quickly figure out which gestures work. The "intutive" nature of this means it is by definition obvious.
The US patent system... now forced down the world's throat thanks to aggressive lobbying of foreign governments by US diplomats bringing shiny beads and mirrors
But make no mistake: The USPTO is the patent troll's friend. Not just due to their lazy examinations, but because they have also increased fee to discourage people from asking for bogus patents to be re-examined. That was the reason they gave when they did this: they are trying to make less work for themselves caused by their own sloppiness in the first place!
The only solution: Tell your congressman and senator to stop this madness now and that there will be consequences at the ballot box if they don't. A tall ask, but they are the only people with the power to change it.
As a desktop Windows developer I was disappointed at how Microsoft has abandoned its desktop roots and users for a single-minded pursuit of the iOS/Android smartphone market.The alienation of their existing customer base has been made very clear to Microsoft. So has the widespread dissatisfaction with Metro 8, but no one at Microsoft is listening to us or even feigning concern.
If Microsoft and hangers on like AMD want to bash their heads into a brick wall that's their choice, but they're not taking us with them. We read the writing on the wall and have switched our desktop efforts to Android tablets. Thanks for the push, Microsoft.
Tech-savy Slashdotters Rule Dutch Court Judgements Can Constitute Sanity Infringement
>Finally, I just love how you left out this part.
>> We do not censor the media and may criticise the government without fear of arrest.
>Which is key to what is being discussed here.
Where are you getting your information from? Don't read it off another government web site. Ask a journalist instead. The government doesn't need to censor the media because it self-censors. Journalists are very restricted in what they can report: If they publish or posses a leaked government document they can be arrested and jailed. A lot of information is withheld from them: The Attorney-General blacked out 90% of that web snooping report. If they report something that later turns out not to be true they can end up sued for defamation even if they did every check they could and even if they honestly believed it were true. You can never be sure what someone else tells you is 100% true, so they can't take the chance, and so don't report on it. Journalists are surrounded by lawyers who will not take even a remote risk of breaking Australia's defamation laws, so you the public don't get to find this stuff out. Australia is not like the US. Reality is more complicated than the rosy picture you have been painted.
This was a good series but is no longer available online: http://www.sbs.com.au/documentary/program/554/Law-and-Disorder
>You can say bad things all you want, you just can't be defamatory.
Trouble is if I think you've defamed me I can take you to court and it will cost you your house before a judge gets around to making that decision. Even if you win you will only get some of your costs back from me. It will also tie you up in court for years. They are called SLAPPs Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation and the best way to avoid them is not to say anything bad about anyone no matter what they have done:
http://www.uow.edu.au/~sharonb/SLAPPS.html
http://www.edo.org.au/edonq/images/stories/factsheets/edonq_defamation_factsheet.pdf - HOW TO DUCK DEFAMATION AND SLIP 'SLAPP' SUITS
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation
>However the constitution does specifiy the right to democratic elections and the High Court has rulled that this means political speach can't be censored.
;-) http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm
I'm glad the high court ruled "implied free speech" instead of no free speech at all!!! but that's a real stretch isn't it? That interpretation was very controversial. The Australian Civil Liberties Union: http://www.angelfire.com/folk/aclu/judges_have_failed.htm
The govenment tell us we need free speech for our democratic elections, then limit it only to "constructive free speech that won't harm someone". There's a lot of BS on that IMMI page like not censoring the press (a journo with a government document can be jailed even if they don't publish it) and Freedom of assembly: see 'Marching Permits'. Yes, you have free speech, but a limited version of it nothing like the US. Don't use it too hard or you mighty break it.
So you think you have free speech because a government web site says you do? Let's look at that a little deeper:
... ", ..." (which is true, assuming there's a law that says a soldier is allowed to kill someone else, and the "Australian" in question in my sentence happens to be one, and feel like killing an enemy...)
http://www.immi.gov.au/living-in-australia/choose-australia/about-australia/five-freedoms.htm
" Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to say or write
Sounds good, but you can do anything within the bounds of the law. Here's an equivalent sentence I just made up:-
" Australians are free, within the bounds of the law, to kill anyone they like, at any time
Their quote continues:
" Free speech comes from facts, not rumours "
Which I could legitimately re-write as so:-
" Australia has laws to prevent you from saying anything you cannot prove. You are not free to spread rumours which you suspect but cannot prove because you are missing information (more on that below)." And God helps anyone who gives you that missing information!
And more:
" and the intention must be constructive, not to do harm. "
LOL. You have the right to speak out, so long as you are constructive to your opponents and do not harm them.
Sounding less and less "free" to me...
It continues:
" There are laws to protect a person's good name and integrity against false information. There are laws against saying or writing things to incite hatred against others because of their culture, ethnicity or background. "
At what point do we draw the line and drop the word "Free" entirely I wonder?
And it ends with a doozy:
" Freedom of speech is not an excuse to harm others" (even if they deserve it!)
So basically, you can do anything that's as fucked up and stupid as you like, because nobody is allowed to tell anyone else about it, because it might harm you...
James Ashby who is now facing 10 years in prison: "Mr Slipper's lawyers suggested James Ashby could have breached sections of the Commonwealth Crimes Act, which prohibits public servants from publishing or communicating internal documents without authorisation." Free speech my arse
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/opinion/political-news/staffer-could-face-10-years-for-sharing-slippers-diary-20120706-21mna.html
Farah (a footballer) has demanded new laws and the Prime Minister (a lawyer) and Attorney-General (also a lawyer) agreed. It took journalist John Birmingham to point out to them there are already laws against this: Section 474.17 of the Commonwealth criminal code creates an offense, punishable by imprisonment for three years, of using a carriage service, and yes the internet counts, in such a way that a reasonable person would consider it “menacing, harassing or offensive”.. People have gone to jail. What more do they want? http://m.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/blunt-instrument/time-to-take-a-deep-breath-before-jumping-on-trolls-20120910-25o81.html
Free Speech is weak in Australia because there is no bill of rights and defamation laws are so tough you can't say anything bad about anyone which is a real problem if you are a journalist, let alone a twitterer.
https://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html
http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Resources/medialaw_in_australia_02.html
http://www.law.uts.edu.au/comslaw/factsheets/defamation.html
> Absent some extraordinary evidence to the contrary, it's quite reasonable to assume that the purchase price of a Kindle would trend towards its marginal cost, minus whatever per-device ad and sales revenue Amazon expects.
Perhaps they could make revenue some other way. The Kindle could even be an ideal format for selling eBooks. Oh wait...
Because ads break your concentration. That is after all what they are designed to do. In this case every time you reach for your damned Kindle. Letting people pay an 'unlocking fee' to get rid of them is a much better idea.
> The commission says its current contractual obligations love of money forbid the use of such rival technology.
Fixed that for you.
> "The TLC is eager to pave the way for taxi riders to take advantage of the most up-to-date technology, including smartphone apps that may help passengers locate available taxicabs more quickly," said TLC chairman, "once we work out how to get a piece of the action".
Oh wham!
All over the world taxi licenses earn government ridiculous amounts of money. The poor bastards that drive the cabs see little of that, with the licences purchased by wealthy investors. Government workers (or quasi-government commissions) forget their mission is to ensure the public has access to taxis. Unfortunately whenever large sums of money are waved under a government workers nose they focus on getting some for themselves. Sure they can't legally pocket it themselves, but organizations bringing in cash get star treatment and some of that cash hangs around as benefits for government workers. https://www.npr.org/2011/11/15/142301617/nyc-taxi-medallions-fetch-unbelievable-returns
The Australian Government is doing the same thing:
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/09/04/1825205/australian-attorney-general-pushes-ahead-with-govt-web-snooping
For the first time in history people can communicate freely en masse and it scares them.