It will. And the more airports it spreads to, the fewer I'll be inclined to fly to/from. Regrettably, I'm only one person, and it won't make any difference.
It doesn't look like the same thing to me. It's trivial to de-friend someone on Facebook from whom one no longer wants to hear. It's far easier than having to go through the hassle of changing one's phone number to a silent number and letting one's circle of friends and family know about it, and I'm sure there may be legitimate concerns about how private a silent number really is anyway.
If we all run away, there will be nowhere left to run away to. I'm not so much assuming he wants to change his government as suggesting that he should at least try to.
I know quite well what voting with one's feet means. Perhaps I can make my point another way, however. You will never change the government simply by choosing to live elsewhere; you will only help to firmly entrench that which you find objectionable because your emmigration increases slightly the proportion of the population you leave behind who agree with what you're walking out on. You have to use one or more of Ed Howdershelt's boxes (the fewer the better) to change the government.
In this context, leaving the UK will do precisely sod-all to change what's going on in the UK. It will instead leave behind a slightly higher concentration of people who are happy with the state of affairs. Moreover, other countries will point to the relative popularity of the measures under discussion here and use that as a lever to do the same thing. Once everyone does that, there is no more voting with feet left available, unless it is the application of said feet to the arses of governments, which just brings us back to the four boxes I already mentioned.
Oops. It IS his country. He gets to moan about the state of affairs is he tries to do something about them, and if he prefers to just go somewhere else where that's been done for him then he gets to STFU.
And you don't vote with your feet. You vote with the ballot box, the soap box, the jury box and then the ammo box of all the others have been compromised.
How long is it going to take people to learn. Blair, Bush, Rudd and Conroy... Four politicians I can name in recent times who advertise their religiousity, four politicians who have backed terrible plans and ignored criticism.
When will people learn to vote for the less religious politicians, or even the agnostic/atheist politicians?
When there are fewer people who think that religion and politics are inseparable. So long as there are enough people who are essentially religious, there will always be more than enough politicians there to exploit that.
When more atheists stand for election. When you get to choose between Atheist A and Atheist B, their atheism stops being a factor and you can concentrate on their politics.
The Telecommunications Minister, Stephen Conroy, pointed to European examples of successful restrictions to quell fears the move could slow connection speeds.
"Labor makes no apologies to those who argue that any regulation of the internet is like going down the Chinese road," Mr Conroy said yesterday. "If people equate freedom of speech with watching child pornography, then the Rudd Labor Government is going to disagree."
-- Labor warned on porn filters, Sydney Morning Herald report, 2 January 2008.
To us, it looks like a game of whack-a-mole. To the authorities, however, it may look like a hydra, and I worry that they might start acting like it. If they haven't already.
...because we all know that the filter can be circumvented. I'm sure the government also knows this. The problem for us will be political. If the government can have legislation rammed through the parliament, then it doesn't matter even if every ISP drops out of the filter test. They can just ram it through (in principle at least) anyway and make it unlawful to attempt to circumvent it. If they could do it, they would, and no amount of non-testing or technical faults would stop them.
However, given that a) they do not have the numbers in the senate on their own to ram it through, b) there is no way the Greens will support it from the cross-benches, and c) the Lib-Nat coalition seems bent on opposing the crap out of everything the government does out of, well, who knows why those clowns do anything at the moment, I cannot see the return they're getting on the investment of political capital in this scheme. Independent Senator Nick Xenophon seems to have lost interest in the filter lately, so that leaves only Senator Steve Fielding of Family First. This filter would naturally appeal to Fielding, but what on earth does the ALP think they can gain by courting him this way? He's shown that he isn't that interested in dealing with the ALP but is instead prepared to scuttle legislation unless he gets his way.
So what's this really all about? Is it really just some bloody-minded insistence upon seeing the program through to its bitter end regardless of its seemingly inevitable failure on both technical and political fronts? Surely, they'd look less daft just admitting it's a failure now than seeing it through to an end of certain failure? I don't see why they're pressing on with it.
For those who follow such things, Senator Conroy is going to be on the panel for next Thursday night's Q&A on the ABC. I think it's high time the Senator took some questions on the subject in front of a live studio audience and on national TV, since he's spent the better part of 15 months ignoring everyone and accusing people of equating free speech with child pornography.
You seem to be begging the question that there is an intelligent agent behind the fine tuning. If you're not, I withdraw the remark.
If you are, I'd like to know why there must be such an agent, and why there is a zero percent chance -- not vanishingly small or appallingly tiny, but actually zero -- that the universe that we observe could not have come about without an intelligent agent. Why is it and why must it be impossible for this universe to exist without there having been an intelligent agent responsible for its creation. Moreover, I want to know why in words that don't in any way mean "I can't see how else it could have happened". Because I don't care about what you don't know; I care about what you do know, and how you know it.
If you disagree, consider this: You spend a year of your life developing a program, with plans to sell it for income, but instead I simply TAKE the program off bittorrent. I have stolen your labor without just compensation.
OK, pay me back. Oh, you can't: you're in the slot.
Slashdot Mirror
I hope it does get appealed, and then I hope that the High Court affirms the Federal Court's decision.
It will. And the more airports it spreads to, the fewer I'll be inclined to fly to/from. Regrettably, I'm only one person, and it won't make any difference.
Apologies for the OT, but they could bypass the anti-caps filter for users with X amount of karma.
Or he could view the site in toto and provide feedback, which is fair enough.
It doesn't look like the same thing to me. It's trivial to de-friend someone on Facebook from whom one no longer wants to hear. It's far easier than having to go through the hassle of changing one's phone number to a silent number and letting one's circle of friends and family know about it, and I'm sure there may be legitimate concerns about how private a silent number really is anyway.
At least it's a dry heat.
Nah, we should email it to everyone in our address books and importune them to pass it on.
Phone this in as a nomination for the Friday F---wit.
Only on /. could this be modded informative. But hey, at least I learned something today!
If we all run away, there will be nowhere left to run away to. I'm not so much assuming he wants to change his government as suggesting that he should at least try to.
I know quite well what voting with one's feet means. Perhaps I can make my point another way, however. You will never change the government simply by choosing to live elsewhere; you will only help to firmly entrench that which you find objectionable because your emmigration increases slightly the proportion of the population you leave behind who agree with what you're walking out on. You have to use one or more of Ed Howdershelt's boxes (the fewer the better) to change the government.
In this context, leaving the UK will do precisely sod-all to change what's going on in the UK. It will instead leave behind a slightly higher concentration of people who are happy with the state of affairs. Moreover, other countries will point to the relative popularity of the measures under discussion here and use that as a lever to do the same thing. Once everyone does that, there is no more voting with feet left available, unless it is the application of said feet to the arses of governments, which just brings us back to the four boxes I already mentioned.
Oops. It IS his country. He gets to moan about the state of affairs is he tries to do something about them, and if he prefers to just go somewhere else where that's been done for him then he gets to STFU.
And you don't vote with your feet. You vote with the ballot box, the soap box, the jury box and then the ammo box of all the others have been compromised.
If the OP's looking for a free country, then who cares what language the OP speaks?
And thus was Windows spawned.
-- Labor warned on porn filters, Sydney Morning Herald report, 2 January 2008.
That at least sort of looks like he's for it.
Host it elsewhere and never connect to it except through a bezillion proxies. Hell, if you're going through proxies, host it on next door's server.
To us, it looks like a game of whack-a-mole. To the authorities, however, it may look like a hydra, and I worry that they might start acting like it. If they haven't already.
It's generally easier to tunnel through internet filtering than through film censorship, though, isn't it?
...because we all know that the filter can be circumvented. I'm sure the government also knows this. The problem for us will be political. If the government can have legislation rammed through the parliament, then it doesn't matter even if every ISP drops out of the filter test. They can just ram it through (in principle at least) anyway and make it unlawful to attempt to circumvent it. If they could do it, they would, and no amount of non-testing or technical faults would stop them.
However, given that a) they do not have the numbers in the senate on their own to ram it through, b) there is no way the Greens will support it from the cross-benches, and c) the Lib-Nat coalition seems bent on opposing the crap out of everything the government does out of, well, who knows why those clowns do anything at the moment, I cannot see the return they're getting on the investment of political capital in this scheme. Independent Senator Nick Xenophon seems to have lost interest in the filter lately, so that leaves only Senator Steve Fielding of Family First. This filter would naturally appeal to Fielding, but what on earth does the ALP think they can gain by courting him this way? He's shown that he isn't that interested in dealing with the ALP but is instead prepared to scuttle legislation unless he gets his way.
So what's this really all about? Is it really just some bloody-minded insistence upon seeing the program through to its bitter end regardless of its seemingly inevitable failure on both technical and political fronts? Surely, they'd look less daft just admitting it's a failure now than seeing it through to an end of certain failure? I don't see why they're pressing on with it.
For those who follow such things, Senator Conroy is going to be on the panel for next Thursday night's Q&A on the ABC. I think it's high time the Senator took some questions on the subject in front of a live studio audience and on national TV, since he's spent the better part of 15 months ignoring everyone and accusing people of equating free speech with child pornography.
You seem to be begging the question that there is an intelligent agent behind the fine tuning. If you're not, I withdraw the remark.
If you are, I'd like to know why there must be such an agent, and why there is a zero percent chance -- not vanishingly small or appallingly tiny, but actually zero -- that the universe that we observe could not have come about without an intelligent agent. Why is it and why must it be impossible for this universe to exist without there having been an intelligent agent responsible for its creation. Moreover, I want to know why in words that don't in any way mean "I can't see how else it could have happened". Because I don't care about what you don't know; I care about what you do know, and how you know it.
OK, pay me back. Oh, you can't: you're in the slot.
Why not, if we must permit them to beg the question, tax knives instead?
Because it's just a tax-grab, that's why.
With a fishnet condom.