I do wonder which Australian party would offer to host WikiLeaks in parliament and get radical on improving (read "creating") free speech in Australia.
My first thought was The Greens, but they have too many other issues on their agenda to risk their political future on this where the legal system is not conducive to free speech, not even in parliament.
Pirate Party of Australia were free enough from other issues to put everything into such issues, but they are in their infancy and unprepared to run in this election. Sociallist Alliance are crazy and altruistic enough to do so, but are equally unelectable.
Free speech just isn't valued here by the people nor the law, not even in parliament. Should a person, even an elected official make a statement in parliament which the other politicians don't like : they will be asked three times to recant their words before they are officially recorded in the hansard.
It's time to get angry Australians! Do it now, before the issue of free speech is put to rest 1984 style once "the filter" is put in place.
Of course we can trust good American corporations like google, there's never been unethical behavior in the corporate sector!... it's not as if governments like China will have access to any of the information they're collecting!
Election soon make your choice giant douche or turd sandwich. Whoever wins we get censorship like china mark my words.
Under the guise of humor or cynicism you Sneakily present a false dichotomy... suggesting the options Labour (left) and Liberal (right) are mutually exhaustive. This is not the case and our choice for an open or shut internet is not the catch-22 many dread! The above exaggeration -however amusing- perpetuates dangerous ignorance.
Admittedly some third-party candidates will -through preference deals and coalitions- support the election of one of two potential prime ministers. Also lower-house elections -having such small electorates where only one candidate can victor- does favor a two party system : even coalitions will continue the drive for mediocrity to win over the median voter.
On the other hand : the Senate is more proportionally representative of society's diverse views because whole states and territories are the electorates or so to speak. Minority views, parties and independents have a decent chance there. Take the Greens senators for example, who happen to be opposed to the filter. Huzzah for democracy! I still want more of it only the demoralizing two-party fallacy restricts true proportional representation.
The current Labour government relies upon the Greens (+ 1 more senator) to pass much legislation the Lib's don't condone (because KRudd does not wield a majority in the upper-house). To be my own devils advocate, one may worry the Greens could 'sell out' on the issue to achieve a higher strategic objective (e.g. save the world - perhaps through a reduction in carbon emissions targets). The Lib's could also make bargains. Such flip-flops are unheard of in the federal Australian senate.
But would any man suggest the Pirate Party of Australia would compromise and vote in such threats to liberty? Tell him he's dream'n!
I can imagine a few factors, having been in meetinghouses often. ( IMHO disclaimer )
The features of office suites seem to be rarely used in the meetinghouses. Spending 'talents' (currency) on seldom used software is difficult to justify.
There is little risk of being liable for somehow facilitating piracy
Explained: Wayward/ignoorant members (or any of the many non-members who use our genealogical facilities often within our meetinghouses) pirating proprietary software (bad publicity, litigation, the ethical dilema). If they get open source software from Church, good:)
The savings can be spend on nobler causes (as mentioned earlier)
Less malicious code to infect Open Office documents and program files at the moment than say MS Office.
Not locking yourself in, being compelled to update ($$$) or renew liscences ($$$.. in a growing church of 12 million or so this could become significant)
I'm not going to attempt to list the benifits of open source, but I can foresee that there are many more.
Sun microsystems, (of whom the Church has been a customer) may have even suggested the idea.
But this is all speculation, for all I know, some authoritive figure probably woke up from a dream of the Open Office Logo floating in the wind and gradually resting upon a meetinghouse:)
Governments may be happy to promote this alternative to your old phone line.
The more move to VoIP (or to Cellular/Mobile phones) the less encumberances the governments have to deal with when they want to tap someones phone line.
I conceed that much, but it will still be vulnerable at the ends. As always - the users will be vulnerable to social attacks.
Their client hardware/software will also be a great point of attack.
Heaven forbid that a majority of Meta users run yet well established vulnerable operating systems [which I wont dignify with a name for the moment].
As previously mentioned on/. one Polish group has already claimed they have - through automated exploits - control near 0.45 Million PC's.
Tell me there aren't government agencies interested in this? Is it beyond them to pay cash for the use of such services? Is it beyond the groups who control the PCs to accept it?
When a majority of Meta users PC's are vulnerable as such: the compromise of their lookup tables may surely be automated, tracing in minutes most of the path to the user they're after.
I can still remember the day...
Labour said Howard was 100% comitted to the war, at a time when Howard was stating he was not comitted to unilateral action, though he prepared for the possibility. ( and had send troops to the region - It's not like we have troops in the gulf perminantly )
On the same day, Labour called Howard a liar. They said he would do anything for George along with a few unkind words about the US President.
But how disappointing it was to see them grovel... how swiftly they apologetically squirmed after Tom Schieffer US Ambassador announced personal slander was not in the interests of good Labour-US relations. I suppose Labour wants to be George's bitch too.
...but what really shut them up was when the coalition reminded them of the party name supporting Tony Blair.
Slashdot Mirror
I do wonder which Australian party would offer to host WikiLeaks in parliament and get radical on improving (read "creating") free speech in Australia.
My first thought was The Greens, but they have too many other issues on their agenda to risk their political future on this where the legal system is not conducive to free speech, not even in parliament.
Pirate Party of Australia were free enough from other issues to put everything into such issues, but they are in their infancy and unprepared to run in this election. Sociallist Alliance are crazy and altruistic enough to do so, but are equally unelectable.
Free speech just isn't valued here by the people nor the law, not even in parliament. Should a person, even an elected official make a statement in parliament which the other politicians don't like : they will be asked three times to recant their words before they are officially recorded in the hansard.
It's time to get angry Australians! Do it now, before the issue of free speech is put to rest 1984 style once "the filter" is put in place.
Of course we can trust good American corporations like google, there's never been unethical behavior in the corporate sector! ... it's not as if governments like China will have access to any of the information they're collecting!
Election soon make your choice giant douche or turd sandwich. Whoever wins we get censorship like china mark my words.
Under the guise of humor or cynicism you Sneakily present a false dichotomy... suggesting the options Labour (left) and Liberal (right) are mutually exhaustive. This is not the case and our choice for an open or shut internet is not the catch-22 many dread! The above exaggeration -however amusing- perpetuates dangerous ignorance.
Admittedly some third-party candidates will -through preference deals and coalitions- support the election of one of two potential prime ministers. Also lower-house elections -having such small electorates where only one candidate can victor- does favor a two party system : even coalitions will continue the drive for mediocrity to win over the median voter.
On the other hand : the Senate is more proportionally representative of society's diverse views because whole states and territories are the electorates or so to speak. Minority views, parties and independents have a decent chance there. Take the Greens senators for example, who happen to be opposed to the filter. Huzzah for democracy! I still want more of it only the demoralizing two-party fallacy restricts true proportional representation.
The current Labour government relies upon the Greens (+ 1 more senator) to pass much legislation the Lib's don't condone (because KRudd does not wield a majority in the upper-house). To be my own devils advocate, one may worry the Greens could 'sell out' on the issue to achieve a higher strategic objective (e.g. save the world - perhaps through a reduction in carbon emissions targets). The Lib's could also make bargains. Such flip-flops are unheard of in the federal Australian senate.
But would any man suggest the Pirate Party of Australia would compromise and vote in such threats to liberty? Tell him he's dream'n!
they can tell me how fast Osama Bin Laden is driving!
I'm not going to attempt to list the benifits of open source, but I can foresee that there are many more.
Sun microsystems, (of whom the Church has been a customer) may have even suggested the idea.
But this is all speculation, for all I know, some authoritive figure probably woke up from a dream of the Open Office Logo floating in the wind and gradually resting upon a meetinghouse
- Brad
Well it is a military development.
Unless, of course, there has been an 80% increase in divorces since the popularization of the internet that I wasn't aware of.
"Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that."
- Homer J. Simpson
I wonder how the divorce rate has fared since the printing press?
Well thank goodness for TubGirl.com then!
Governments may be happy to promote this alternative to your old phone line.
The more move to VoIP (or to Cellular/Mobile phones) the less encumberances the governments have to deal with when they want to tap someones phone line.
Ever wondered what the eye on the pyramid means?
Nah, they just took to the streets because their trains are being cancelled.
I conceed that much, but it will still be vulnerable at the ends. As always - the users will be vulnerable to social attacks.
/. one Polish group has already claimed they have - through automated exploits - control near 0.45 Million PC's.
Their client hardware/software will also be a great point of attack.
Heaven forbid that a majority of Meta users run yet well established vulnerable operating systems [which I wont dignify with a name for the moment].
As previously mentioned on
Tell me there aren't government agencies interested in this? Is it beyond them to pay cash for the use of such services? Is it beyond the groups who control the PCs to accept it?
When a majority of Meta users PC's are vulnerable as such: the compromise of their lookup tables may surely be automated, tracing in minutes most of the path to the user they're after.
"why should we trust you?" ;)
I can imagine a time when I'll receive 3 emails every week inviting me to hook up to their
"PREFECTLY HONEST META SERVICE FOR MY MILLIONS OF MY US DOLLARS IN NIGERIA."
"VeriSign: Meta you can Trust"
"Upgrade to MSN Premium Meta Accounts"
Cheers,
On the same day, Labour called Howard a liar. They said he would do anything for George along with a few unkind words about the US President.
But how disappointing it was to see them grovel... how swiftly they apologetically squirmed after Tom Schieffer US Ambassador announced personal slander was not in the interests of good Labour-US relations. I suppose Labour wants to be George's bitch too.