It's mainstream in Australia. The SMH is one of two "broadsheets" in Australia and is read widely, despite hailing from Sydney. It's about as mainstream as you can get.
If you want to buy shares, buy the catering companies'. BA stock dropped 6% & Easyjet dropped too. It's a cert. that their stocks won't bounce back in a hurry (save for the effect of speculative buyers) but the catering companies won't feel the squeeze as much.
I'm not a biologist, and as much as I'm interested in this kind of thing I don't have the time, inclination or background to keep up with such old, old stories.
Sure, it's a hot headline &./ may have been hoodwinked by it, but I don't really mind - one of the great things about/. is that when you get an article like this, folks who actually *do* know what they're talking about will chime in with links to better info, better commentary, explanations of their own... which means that I get to vaguely edumacate myself over lunch.
It's not like it's another "Google releases x beta" story - it's a starting point for discussion. Just my £0.018
You're just not getting it (no disrespect). As an Aussie, yo uonly really need to read the firsst couple of lines to know that this is satire. The content of the thing is SO radically removed from John Howard's stance as to be an obvious satire. Australia has quite a history (bit like the British with The Office) of doing satire that *looks* like it could be/should be real. If you're American, imagine that this purported to come straight from GW... I imagine you'd look at it and *know* that it was a joke. Same story here.
The Oz Government requested that the site be taken down on the grounds of a potential copyright infringement. It's unclear from the article how the request was made, but they usually come in the form of a "take-down" issued by the Australian Communications and Media Authority under the Broadcasting Services Act (Google 'em, I'm lazy) which goes to the orgainsation hosting the site and says that there's a website which uses copyrighted material without the authority of the copyright holder, please take it down within 48 hours (IIRC). Process open to abuse? Absolutely.
Take Down notices don't turn up as often as you'd think but even if one wasn't issued, when the Government called Melbourne IT, you can bet that they said "how high"..
Fair use. Yes, Australia has Fair Use exceptions within their copyright regime and they extend to the use of copyrighted material for the purposes of satire. This site clearly falls within the exception.
Further, Australians have an "implied right" of "freedom of political communication". Basically, the Australian Consitution "implies" that Australians have the right of free speech insofar as that speech relates to politicians and the political process (ie because your speech relates to the election of government and by extension politicians, you are free to say what you want - approximately accurate nutshell). It's actually quite restricted and has failed as a defence (it's not a positive right like the US right, only a defence) on a number of occasions, most notably when a satirical song was created about an Australian politician called Pauline Hanson by a satirist called Pauline Pantsdown. It was an hilarious satire using Pauline Hanson's own words but mixed up & rephrased (definitely worth googling).
I gues that the end story here is that the Australian Govt. have done themselves NO favours. Requesting the site be taken down was always going to make the press and was always going to go against the Govt. End result is better publicity for his piece.
And it's not bad - gets the tone right and doesn't resort to the usual "nah-nah-nah" that passes for political satire in Australia.
Pretty much spot on, content included.
And could someone do the guy a favour & mirror the PDF?
Do you feel pressure to moderate what you say online? I ask because I spent a number of years in the middle east (including Jordan) and discussion of matters political was avoided if not discouraged. Less so in Jordan, to be fair. So to be blunt, do you have to, or *feel* that you have to watch what you say online? And if you do, has this changed over the last, say, 10 years?
Too expensive, and they'd still not be able to compete with the net where there's an abundance of still & moving-picture porn available for free or for a minimal charge and where you don't have to buy it over a counter.
That's actually true across species although not neccessarliy in relation to intelligence. The males of almost all species exhibit more variety than the females - distribution is broad for males, narrow for females (as a rule). So not that surprising that there are more geniuses as well as more morons in the male of the species.
Slashdot Mirror
Pirates be straight outta Compton!
It's mainstream in Australia. The SMH is one of two "broadsheets" in Australia and is read widely, despite hailing from Sydney. It's about as mainstream as you can get.
Good on you for taking her along (assuming she didn't take YOU!) She sounds like a smart, interesting kid.
You spend WAY too much time in the can!
If you want to buy shares, buy the catering companies'. BA stock dropped 6% & Easyjet dropped too. It's a cert. that their stocks won't bounce back in a hurry (save for the effect of speculative buyers) but the catering companies won't feel the squeeze as much.
I'm not a biologist, and as much as I'm interested in this kind of thing I don't have the time, inclination or background to keep up with such old, old stories.
./ may have been hoodwinked by it, but I don't really mind - one of the great things about /. is that when you get an article like this, folks who actually *do* know what they're talking about will chime in with links to better info, better commentary, explanations of their own... which means that I get to vaguely edumacate myself over lunch.
Sure, it's a hot headline &
It's not like it's another "Google releases x beta" story - it's a starting point for discussion. Just my £0.018
Note to self: Pengo lacking in sense of humour.
You're just plain wrong. Read this
Is that a euphemism?
You're American (I'm guessing given currency). you guys use cash a LOT. In the UK (where parent & I live) there's no real need...
I've always wondered what would be the effect of letting off a nuke (or two) somewhere where there's loads of ice covering land.
Like Greenland, or Antarctica.
Any ideas?
You're just not getting it (no disrespect). As an Aussie, yo uonly really need to read the firsst couple of lines to know that this is satire. The content of the thing is SO radically removed from John Howard's stance as to be an obvious satire. Australia has quite a history (bit like the British with The Office) of doing satire that *looks* like it could be/should be real. If you're American, imagine that this purported to come straight from GW... I imagine you'd look at it and *know* that it was a joke. Same story here.
The Oz Government requested that the site be taken down on the grounds of a potential copyright infringement. It's unclear from the article how the request was made, but they usually come in the form of a "take-down" issued by the Australian Communications and Media Authority under the Broadcasting Services Act (Google 'em, I'm lazy) which goes to the orgainsation hosting the site and says that there's a website which uses copyrighted material without the authority of the copyright holder, please take it down within 48 hours (IIRC). Process open to abuse? Absolutely.
Take Down notices don't turn up as often as you'd think but even if one wasn't issued, when the Government called Melbourne IT, you can bet that they said "how high"..
Fair use. Yes, Australia has Fair Use exceptions within their copyright regime and they extend to the use of copyrighted material for the purposes of satire. This site clearly falls within the exception.
Further, Australians have an "implied right" of "freedom of political communication". Basically, the Australian Consitution "implies" that Australians have the right of free speech insofar as that speech relates to politicians and the political process (ie because your speech relates to the election of government and by extension politicians, you are free to say what you want - approximately accurate nutshell). It's actually quite restricted and has failed as a defence (it's not a positive right like the US right, only a defence) on a number of occasions, most notably when a satirical song was created about an Australian politician called Pauline Hanson by a satirist called Pauline Pantsdown. It was an hilarious satire using Pauline Hanson's own words but mixed up & rephrased (definitely worth googling).
I gues that the end story here is that the Australian Govt. have done themselves NO favours. Requesting the site be taken down was always going to make the press and was always going to go against the Govt. End result is better publicity for his piece.
And it's not bad - gets the tone right and doesn't resort to the usual "nah-nah-nah" that passes for political satire in Australia.
Pretty much spot on, content included.
And could someone do the guy a favour & mirror the PDF?
Salaam alaikum.
Do you feel pressure to moderate what you say online? I ask because I spent a number of years in the middle east (including Jordan) and discussion of matters political was avoided if not discouraged. Less so in Jordan, to be fair. So to be blunt, do you have to, or *feel* that you have to watch what you say online? And if you do, has this changed over the last, say, 10 years?
I guess that means they can still find ./ huh?
That we could dispense with the rumours?
Hey. I'm sorry that you're ill. I hope things improve for you. Good luck.
Too expensive, and they'd still not be able to compete with the net where there's an abundance of still & moving-picture porn available for free or for a minimal charge and where you don't have to buy it over a counter.
"You can meet her physically, but you can't metaphysically."
And with lines that good, I'll bet you can't *meat* her physically either.
That just means the rich get first dibs.
Not what the world needs - opening up a resource to private ownership that only the already wealthy are eligible to own.
Hey! Where'd the "Windows is borken & they admit it" story just go?
You can then see whether the /. frontpage validates. As others have pointed out in this thread, it doesn't strictly comply.
Even worse, it's not actually from The Australian. It's actually from that venerable British institution, The Sunday Times.
That's actually true across species although not neccessarliy in relation to intelligence. The males of almost all species exhibit more variety than the females - distribution is broad for males, narrow for females (as a rule). So not that surprising that there are more geniuses as well as more morons in the male of the species.
http://bash.org/?240849