You're probably the friendliest country in the world, has no major problems with economy or political stability, haven't done anything to piss off other countries, and your treatment of the native population seems humane compared to how most other countries have treated theirs.
Is there a law against receiving "goods obtained via illegal means" in Australia?
Where I live (Sweden), it's illegal to accept stolen goods, and in some cases smuggled goods, but no general law against receiving something which has been obtained illegally. For example, it's not illegal to possess a pirate copy someone else has manufactured, it's not illegal to possess a bottle of liquor bought by someone under 18, and so on. More to the point, it's not illegal for a journalist to receive, possess and publish a document which has been leaked illegally. This is deliberate - in many cases classified documents reveal corruption or incompetence, and it's considered more important to bring that to the public's knowledge than to keep the secrets.
Also, digital data is not considered "goods" - for example, if someone steals a photograph, it's only illegal to possess that particular physical copy of the photograph. It's not illegal to possess the data contained in the photograph, so you can legally receive and possess another copy made from it.
Well, the rivalry may be true, but once the election is over, they may cover each other's backs, in the hope that the other party will do the same thing when the current president's term is over.
Wikileaks has also, among other things, released documents exposing child slavery and prostitution in Saudi Arabia, which the Saudian government denies exists.
Hundreds of civilians have been wounded or killed by coalition forces in several instances that were not previously revealed. The press listed several examples of such previously unreported incidents of civilian injuries and deaths. David Leigh of The Guardian wrote:
They range from the shootings of individual innocents to the often massive loss of life from air strikes, which eventually led President Hamid Karzai to protest publicly that the US was treating Afghan lives as "cheap". When civilian family members are actually killed in Afghanistan, their relatives do, in fairness, get greater solatia payments than cans of beans and Hershey bars. The logs refer to sums paid of 100,000 Afghani per corpse, equivalent to about £1,500.
Using his wife as a shield was another one of the false reports the media received. But as a poster remarked above, it doesn't matter if people later find out it isn't true - their attitudes will still have shifted somewhat.
P.S. If the attitude towards sex becomes more relaxed, I think the amount of sexual innuendo and partial nudity in TV shows and movies will actually go down. The need to live out one's sexual desires vicariously through the actors becomes less.
And one more thing: my SO and I have noticed that when couples in American sitcoms are shown after sex, the female is always wearing a bra, so they can sit up in the bed and talk without risking that the TV audience sees part of a breast. My SO and I joke that American women must always be wearing their bras during sex:)
Have any of you describing the US as "sexphobic" actually watched any US TV, movies, etc? Just about all mainstream media is saturated with examples of sexuality, some of it borders on pornography.
I wouldn't call the USA sexophobic, but yes, I've watched lots of american shows and tv series, and yes, I think the attitude towards sex is a little more tense than, for example, Europe.
To understand this, I think we need to make clear the difference between sexuality and pornography. For example, lots of shows show girls in bikinis on the beach, or strippers dancing with a pole - that's pornography. But few shows show sexual acts, and even fewer show sexuality as something everyday and normal - like two ordinary parents having sex under a blanket while their infant sleeps.
Sex And The City broke a barrier in American TV - it showed nipples, sexually aggressive females talking about sex in a vulgar fashion, and parts of sexual acts. But it also emphasized that freely enjoying sex was something extraordinary, something for big-city career women with multiple partners. I think it would have been even more provoking to the American public to show four ordinary small-town moms sit down at a diner and talk about sex with their husbands, because that's closer to the reality most Americans live in.
So what would the US have to do to be thought of as NOT sexphobic by you? Have a picture-in-picture on every channel of hardcore intercourse?
People talking about sex in casual conversation without making a joke of it or intending it to be titillating.
As to Bin Laden--when you have a man preaching his religion, which vilifies those who do things like watch pornography, it's a very useful tool against him to say "Hey, this jackass does exactly what he tells you not to do"...
No, but I'm saying the number of people who would've bought your program could be very low, and may even be lower than the number of people who buy your program because it was recommended to them by pirating friends. Most of the 1000 people who pirate the program might not even have heard of it if they hadn't found it on a filesharing network.
This seems to be true for the music business; many bands release their music for free, because in the end, they end up making as much money due to the marketing effect when people share their music with their friends. The software industry may work differently, but it may still make more sense to give away your program for free and charge for value-added services, like convenient and guaranteed virus-free updates, add-on packs, access to discussion forums, implementing features on request, and so on.
I think being angry at the pirates because they get something without paying is pointless. Pretend like copyright doesn't exist and copying for private use is just like lending a book or movie to a friend.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's bashing Australia?
You're probably the friendliest country in the world, has no major problems with economy or political stability, haven't done anything to piss off other countries, and your treatment of the native population seems humane compared to how most other countries have treated theirs.
Is there a law against receiving "goods obtained via illegal means" in Australia?
Where I live (Sweden), it's illegal to accept stolen goods, and in some cases smuggled goods, but no general law against receiving something which has been obtained illegally. For example, it's not illegal to possess a pirate copy someone else has manufactured, it's not illegal to possess a bottle of liquor bought by someone under 18, and so on. More to the point, it's not illegal for a journalist to receive, possess and publish a document which has been leaked illegally. This is deliberate - in many cases classified documents reveal corruption or incompetence, and it's considered more important to bring that to the public's knowledge than to keep the secrets.
Also, digital data is not considered "goods" - for example, if someone steals a photograph, it's only illegal to possess that particular physical copy of the photograph. It's not illegal to possess the data contained in the photograph, so you can legally receive and possess another copy made from it.
That's not a knife. THIS is!
You, sir, seem like a sensible and insightful fellow. Do you have a blog where I can confirm more of my... um, I mean, read more of your opinions?
Ok, it's not important if we call it pornography. Let's call it titillation instead.
Well, the rivalry may be true, but once the election is over, they may cover each other's backs, in the hope that the other party will do the same thing when the current president's term is over.
Yes. I wrote they like to *pretend* their strikes are very precise and kill few civilans. As in keeping the outwardly appearance of it.
Wikileaks has also, among other things, released documents exposing child slavery and prostitution in Saudi Arabia, which the Saudian government denies exists.
Damn you, now you've put the image in my head!
Honestly, I think the top post in this thread was just flamebaiting.
Absolutely - it's just propaganda, and it's ridiculous there are still politicians falling for it.
I'm sorry, but I think you've been misled.
From the Wikipedia article on the Afghan war documents:
Hundreds of civilians have been wounded or killed by coalition forces in several instances that were not previously revealed. The press listed several examples of such previously unreported incidents of civilian injuries and deaths. David Leigh of The Guardian wrote:
They range from the shootings of individual innocents to the often massive loss of life from air strikes, which eventually led President Hamid Karzai to protest publicly that the US was treating Afghan lives as "cheap". When civilian family members are actually killed in Afghanistan, their relatives do, in fairness, get greater solatia payments than cans of beans and Hershey bars. The logs refer to sums paid of 100,000 Afghani per corpse, equivalent to about £1,500.
Maybe it was videos of Iranian women taking off their headwear and shaking their hair?
It was probably videos where Iranian women took off their headwear and shook their hair - or even revealed their ankles!
Using his wife as a shield was another one of the false reports the media received. But as a poster remarked above, it doesn't matter if people later find out it isn't true - their attitudes will still have shifted somewhat.
P.S. If the attitude towards sex becomes more relaxed, I think the amount of sexual innuendo and partial nudity in TV shows and movies will actually go down. The need to live out one's sexual desires vicariously through the actors becomes less.
And one more thing: my SO and I have noticed that when couples in American sitcoms are shown after sex, the female is always wearing a bra, so they can sit up in the bed and talk without risking that the TV audience sees part of a breast. My SO and I joke that American women must always be wearing their bras during sex :)
Have any of you describing the US as "sexphobic" actually watched any US TV, movies, etc? Just about all mainstream media is saturated with examples of sexuality, some of it borders on pornography.
I wouldn't call the USA sexophobic, but yes, I've watched lots of american shows and tv series, and yes, I think the attitude towards sex is a little more tense than, for example, Europe.
To understand this, I think we need to make clear the difference between sexuality and pornography. For example, lots of shows show girls in bikinis on the beach, or strippers dancing with a pole - that's pornography. But few shows show sexual acts, and even fewer show sexuality as something everyday and normal - like two ordinary parents having sex under a blanket while their infant sleeps.
Sex And The City broke a barrier in American TV - it showed nipples, sexually aggressive females talking about sex in a vulgar fashion, and parts of sexual acts. But it also emphasized that freely enjoying sex was something extraordinary, something for big-city career women with multiple partners. I think it would have been even more provoking to the American public to show four ordinary small-town moms sit down at a diner and talk about sex with their husbands, because that's closer to the reality most Americans live in.
So what would the US have to do to be thought of as NOT sexphobic by you? Have a picture-in-picture on every channel of hardcore intercourse?
People talking about sex in casual conversation without making a joke of it or intending it to be titillating.
As to Bin Laden--when you have a man preaching his religion, which vilifies those who do things like watch pornography, it's a very useful tool against him to say "Hey, this jackass does exactly what he tells you not to do" ...
Makes sense to me.
No, but I'm saying the number of people who would've bought your program could be very low, and may even be lower than the number of people who buy your program because it was recommended to them by pirating friends. Most of the 1000 people who pirate the program might not even have heard of it if they hadn't found it on a filesharing network.
This seems to be true for the music business; many bands release their music for free, because in the end, they end up making as much money due to the marketing effect when people share their music with their friends. The software industry may work differently, but it may still make more sense to give away your program for free and charge for value-added services, like convenient and guaranteed virus-free updates, add-on packs, access to discussion forums, implementing features on request, and so on.
I think being angry at the pirates because they get something without paying is pointless. Pretend like copyright doesn't exist and copying for private use is just like lending a book or movie to a friend.
I was just being ironic :)
lol, you got me with that one
It means you can be entangled with many different partners at the same time, as long as no one is observing you...
It can even be entangled, have rotation and spin.
Wait - does that mean I *can't* wish things into being?
Chuck Norris doesn't spot jokes. He just looks grim, and the joke stops being funny.
True.