Anyway, the guy clearly shows that he's talking bullshit. I mean, how can a structure that allows opt-out work against child porn? This is a scheme to disallow children to watch porn, it won't do anything against child porn. In other words, this is semi-religious conservative populist BS from someone that does not understand a thing about the internet.
The kiddie porn thing was only thrown in as a red herring to counter accusations of government interference in issues of freedom of speech. This scheme is (ostensibly) intended to prevent children from accessing inappropriate material. The filter can be turned off from your account. However, people who do so leave themselves open to suspicion and labelling with the sort of labels that stick for a very long time.
I am thinking about writing to my brand new MP about this, and your summary looks like it may be quite useful. Mind if I borrow it?
Whether or not someone was harmed in the creation of an image has nothing at all to do with whether or not it harms anyone else to view the image. If that's your argument then we need to ban all forms of journalistic photography and prosecute the producers of every show from Oprah to COPS to Jerry Springer.
You realise you've just completely shot yourself in the foot here, don't you? Those three shows are some of the best arguments against free speech I've ever heard.
We had a referendum about ditching the Queen back in '99. The most frequently offered reason it didn't get up was because the proposed model for how a new head of state would be chosen was very unpopular. The Wikipedia article has a bit to say about it all.
I think your post needs a 'didn't RTFA' tag on it. From the article:
Senator Conroy says it will be mandatory for all internet service providers to provide clean feeds, or ISP filtering, to houses and schools that are free of pornography and inappropriate material.
The difference between spam and myminicity links is that I can filter spam. These jerks have sucked me into clicking their links a couple of times now. I suspect I'm not the only one.
Well, according to the AEC 3.95% of the votes were informal. Moreover, in recent years the donkey vote (voting 1-whatever down the list of candidates) seems to have been less than 1%. Of course, one must also take into account that some people actually want to vote in the order the candidates are listed on the paper.
So it would appear that the total number of voters turning up and voting properly might be around the 94% mark.
Where did we get the idea that this only covers kiddie porn? As far as I can tell from TFA it's going to cover anything 'inappropriate', although the good Senator does use kiddie porn to shut down the freedom of speech angle.
Yeah, sorry. My post used to make more sense, but I redacted it before sending. Anyway, just to show there's no hard feelings here's a link to the ABC story.
To be honest, I gave up half way through your rant, but it might interest you to know that voting is compulsory for everyone >18 in Australia, with a very few exceptions. The November election had a turnout of over 96% of the electorate.
That seems to be correct. The news reports I've heard (on the ABC, so probably correct) say that it's optional for subscribers but mandatory for ISPs to implement it. In other words, it's an opt out system.
Hmm, I see your point. Whilst I don't currently work in the inner city, the organisation I work for is well known --- in fact, probably best known --- for its work amongst such people. Past roles have included a lot of work in this field, and I frequently end up going into the city to stay with friends who do work in these areas for holidays. So I'm quite familiar with how it all goes down.
Of course, I live and work in Australia, and the scene is clearly very different here, and thus I'm happy to submit to your account of the shoes over the power line thing. I suspect the difference between our two nations is to do with a different 'official' approach to drugs and addiction. For example, the police here would be very interested to know where meth dens (or our equivalent) are located. They're not immediately interested in closing it down, because the users are just going to go elsewhere. Instead, they want to know where trouble is likely to start and overdose victims are likely to be found.
In fact, one of the things we're experimenting with over here is safe injecting rooms --- users can turn up, get a clean fit, take their hit, and be on their way. If they overdo it there are trained people who can administer first aid and get an ambulance. There have been one or two operating, and they've been quite successful. They don't make headlines, but the various interest groups are trying to get funding for more --- they're not electorally popular, but neither are hundreds of people dying every year from overdoses. I'm glad we're starting to see this as a health issue, not just a criminal one.
This is why I believe the idea is BS. Why would a meth den advertise openly? I mean, if meth-heads can follow the shoes can't the police? And when the den relocates, how would they move the shoes? After a couple of moves there would be too many false positives around town to be of any use.
Add to that the gang turf wars, bored kids, college kids marking their loss of virginity and all the other meanings this thread has associated with the practice. Any crack dealer using this as an advertising medium has been sampling too much of his own product.
Note to mods: When I lived in Portland, I knew a real bearded woman.
Funny you say that. When I lived in Portland I also knew a bearded woman. The thing is, the Portland I lived in is in Victoria, Australia. I'm guessing you were in Oregon, USA?
I've seen some pretty good examples of this sort of thing here in Australia recently.
I don't know how it works everywhere else in the world, but in late October most final year high school students finish their classes and begin to prepare for their final exams. This last day is called (in my state, at least) 'Muck-up Day.' I guess most places have a similar thing --- students arrive at school early, give it a nice coating of egg and toilet paper and generally run amok for the day. The idea is that the system can't really do much to you any more, so you can do all those things you've wanted to do for the last twelve years but couldn't, at least if you wanted to finish your education. My geeky friends and I preferred to stay clean, but we did manage to hack the bell system so we could start and end classes when we wanted to.
I remember the lecture our class got the day before Muck-up Day --- the principal reminded us that we were all adults: if we broke anything we'd be expected to pay for it and if we broke any laws he wouldn't be bailing us out. Fair enough.
In the last few years there has been a general tightening up of what actually goes on. Principals give the lecture, but they actually tell kids (and I use that word intentionally) what they're allowed to do: no egg, no more than one roll of toilet paper each, naughtiness is restricted to certain areas of the school and cannot start until a teacher arrives to supervise, and all mess must be cleaned up by the time they begin lessons (which they are still expected to attend). Any deviation from the guidelines may result in denial of entry to exams. And of course, students comply!
A few weeks later exams are finished, and many ex-students like to celebrate with a trip to different resort areas --- Surfer's Paradise in Queensland is the most popular. For many 'Schoolies Week' is the first big trip away without Mum and Dad, and the first after reaching legal majority. So kids (see above) descend on these towns full of hormones and energy at the beginning of summer ready to party. Local councils and police departments are ready for the onslaught and set up all sorts of appropriate services to deal with the inevitable rowdiness and overindulgence that's about to happen. After all, teenagers experiencing their first taste of freedom can cause problems.
The authorities prefer to deal with the situation by controlling it --- they declare 'Schoolies only zones' which are only accessible by school leavers, and put on top bands and so on. Of course, if you want to get into these zones, you have to register and agree to abide by the rules. In all, it's a pretty good system and does minimise the problems caused by 'toolies' who want to gatecrash.
Of course, apart from the fact there's good music and they're allowed to drink, schoolies are treated just like school kids, and they acquiesce without complaint. Now in all honesty, I'd rather toe the line if I could hear good bands without the headache of idiots, but the scary thing is that many of these kids think they're stickin' it to the man when they're just lining up and doing as they're told.
I'm probably just jealous that I didn't get to go.
Fair enough, but this particular forum doesn't seem to mind a bit of informality creeping in. I mean, what sort of professional, academic settings have ninjas attacking their guests?
Copyrighted hymns are, believe it or not, a big problem for some churches. Many countries, including a few in northern Europe have a separate royalty collection agency to represent rights-holders of songs likely to be sung in churches. As far as I understand the license covers the printing of words in hymn sheets, OHP or whatever, but not the act of singing itself (which is apparently presumed to be okay --- hymnals and the like are generally published with the understanding that they're going to be used for public singing), and obviously doesn't cover works that are in the public domain (or for which rights have otherwise been acquired).
In Australia, APRA (our equivalent of the RIAA) allows churches a general exemption from paying royalties on performing recorded music during worship services. This means that you can play Britney for your congregational prayer time without worrying about the stormtroopers busting in the windows.
Of course, if my church started to play Britney I'd be praying for the stormtroopers to bust in the windows, but that's another discussion.
The ad also says "Free text virgin to virgin" at the bottom.
The experience damaged Alison's reputation and exposed her to ridicule from her peers and scrutiny from people who can now Google her, the family said in the lawsuit.
"It's the tag line; it's derogatory," said Damon Chang, 27. "A lot of her church friends saw it."
Umm, somebody sends their daughter to church camp and gets upset that she returns with a reputation of being a virgin? Damn, I grew up in the wrong church!
Slashdot Mirror
Is this the first antimyminicity myminicity troll?
The kiddie porn thing was only thrown in as a red herring to counter accusations of government interference in issues of freedom of speech. This scheme is (ostensibly) intended to prevent children from accessing inappropriate material. The filter can be turned off from your account. However, people who do so leave themselves open to suspicion and labelling with the sort of labels that stick for a very long time.
I am thinking about writing to my brand new MP about this, and your summary looks like it may be quite useful. Mind if I borrow it?
You realise you've just completely shot yourself in the foot here, don't you? Those three shows are some of the best arguments against free speech I've ever heard.
We had a referendum about ditching the Queen back in '99. The most frequently offered reason it didn't get up was because the proposed model for how a new head of state would be chosen was very unpopular. The Wikipedia article has a bit to say about it all.
I think your post needs a 'didn't RTFA' tag on it. From the article:
Senator Conroy says it will be mandatory for all internet service providers to provide clean feeds, or ISP filtering, to houses and schools that are free of pornography and inappropriate material.Sounds like he's mandating it to me.
The difference between spam and myminicity links is that I can filter spam. These jerks have sucked me into clicking their links a couple of times now. I suspect I'm not the only one.
Well, according to the AEC 3.95% of the votes were informal. Moreover, in recent years the donkey vote (voting 1-whatever down the list of candidates) seems to have been less than 1%. Of course, one must also take into account that some people actually want to vote in the order the candidates are listed on the paper.
So it would appear that the total number of voters turning up and voting properly might be around the 94% mark.
Where did we get the idea that this only covers kiddie porn? As far as I can tell from TFA it's going to cover anything 'inappropriate', although the good Senator does use kiddie porn to shut down the freedom of speech angle.
Yeah, sorry. My post used to make more sense, but I redacted it before sending. Anyway, just to show there's no hard feelings here's a link to the ABC story.
To be honest, I gave up half way through your rant, but it might interest you to know that voting is compulsory for everyone >18 in Australia, with a very few exceptions. The November election had a turnout of over 96% of the electorate.
That seems to be correct. The news reports I've heard (on the ABC, so probably correct) say that it's optional for subscribers but mandatory for ISPs to implement it. In other words, it's an opt out system.
Hmm, I see your point. Whilst I don't currently work in the inner city, the organisation I work for is well known --- in fact, probably best known --- for its work amongst such people. Past roles have included a lot of work in this field, and I frequently end up going into the city to stay with friends who do work in these areas for holidays. So I'm quite familiar with how it all goes down.
Of course, I live and work in Australia, and the scene is clearly very different here, and thus I'm happy to submit to your account of the shoes over the power line thing. I suspect the difference between our two nations is to do with a different 'official' approach to drugs and addiction. For example, the police here would be very interested to know where meth dens (or our equivalent) are located. They're not immediately interested in closing it down, because the users are just going to go elsewhere. Instead, they want to know where trouble is likely to start and overdose victims are likely to be found.
In fact, one of the things we're experimenting with over here is safe injecting rooms --- users can turn up, get a clean fit, take their hit, and be on their way. If they overdo it there are trained people who can administer first aid and get an ambulance. There have been one or two operating, and they've been quite successful. They don't make headlines, but the various interest groups are trying to get funding for more --- they're not electorally popular, but neither are hundreds of people dying every year from overdoses. I'm glad we're starting to see this as a health issue, not just a criminal one.
Wow. Way to go off topic...!
Well, if they have 31 months in the year I think they can end their centuries whenever they want!
Ha! It's not time that's for sale, but that's more or less the theme of Asimov's The God's Themselves.
This is why I believe the idea is BS. Why would a meth den advertise openly? I mean, if meth-heads can follow the shoes can't the police? And when the den relocates, how would they move the shoes? After a couple of moves there would be too many false positives around town to be of any use.
Add to that the gang turf wars, bored kids, college kids marking their loss of virginity and all the other meanings this thread has associated with the practice. Any crack dealer using this as an advertising medium has been sampling too much of his own product.
We did that on November 24.
Funny you say that. When I lived in Portland I also knew a bearded woman. The thing is, the Portland I lived in is in Victoria, Australia. I'm guessing you were in Oregon, USA?
How is calling a generally accepted idea a lie without reason or evidence not flamebait?
Damn, feeding the trolls again...
I've seen some pretty good examples of this sort of thing here in Australia recently.
I don't know how it works everywhere else in the world, but in late October most final year high school students finish their classes and begin to prepare for their final exams. This last day is called (in my state, at least) 'Muck-up Day.' I guess most places have a similar thing --- students arrive at school early, give it a nice coating of egg and toilet paper and generally run amok for the day. The idea is that the system can't really do much to you any more, so you can do all those things you've wanted to do for the last twelve years but couldn't, at least if you wanted to finish your education. My geeky friends and I preferred to stay clean, but we did manage to hack the bell system so we could start and end classes when we wanted to.
I remember the lecture our class got the day before Muck-up Day --- the principal reminded us that we were all adults: if we broke anything we'd be expected to pay for it and if we broke any laws he wouldn't be bailing us out. Fair enough.
In the last few years there has been a general tightening up of what actually goes on. Principals give the lecture, but they actually tell kids (and I use that word intentionally) what they're allowed to do: no egg, no more than one roll of toilet paper each, naughtiness is restricted to certain areas of the school and cannot start until a teacher arrives to supervise, and all mess must be cleaned up by the time they begin lessons (which they are still expected to attend). Any deviation from the guidelines may result in denial of entry to exams. And of course, students comply!
A few weeks later exams are finished, and many ex-students like to celebrate with a trip to different resort areas --- Surfer's Paradise in Queensland is the most popular. For many 'Schoolies Week' is the first big trip away without Mum and Dad, and the first after reaching legal majority. So kids (see above) descend on these towns full of hormones and energy at the beginning of summer ready to party. Local councils and police departments are ready for the onslaught and set up all sorts of appropriate services to deal with the inevitable rowdiness and overindulgence that's about to happen. After all, teenagers experiencing their first taste of freedom can cause problems.
The authorities prefer to deal with the situation by controlling it --- they declare 'Schoolies only zones' which are only accessible by school leavers, and put on top bands and so on. Of course, if you want to get into these zones, you have to register and agree to abide by the rules. In all, it's a pretty good system and does minimise the problems caused by 'toolies' who want to gatecrash.
Of course, apart from the fact there's good music and they're allowed to drink, schoolies are treated just like school kids, and they acquiesce without complaint. Now in all honesty, I'd rather toe the line if I could hear good bands without the headache of idiots, but the scary thing is that many of these kids think they're stickin' it to the man when they're just lining up and doing as they're told.
I'm probably just jealous that I didn't get to go.
Further to that, if you look at this picture you get the impression that RMS was the best dressed person in the place.
Fair enough, but this particular forum doesn't seem to mind a bit of informality creeping in. I mean, what sort of professional, academic settings have ninjas attacking their guests?
Close --- it was 'The Life of Brian'
Just what is it that slashdotters find so interesting about medium sized stringed instruments?
Copyrighted hymns are, believe it or not, a big problem for some churches. Many countries, including a few in northern Europe have a separate royalty collection agency to represent rights-holders of songs likely to be sung in churches. As far as I understand the license covers the printing of words in hymn sheets, OHP or whatever, but not the act of singing itself (which is apparently presumed to be okay --- hymnals and the like are generally published with the understanding that they're going to be used for public singing), and obviously doesn't cover works that are in the public domain (or for which rights have otherwise been acquired).
In Australia, APRA (our equivalent of the RIAA) allows churches a general exemption from paying royalties on performing recorded music during worship services. This means that you can play Britney for your congregational prayer time without worrying about the stormtroopers busting in the windows.
Of course, if my church started to play Britney I'd be praying for the stormtroopers to bust in the windows, but that's another discussion.
The ad also says "Free text virgin to virgin" at the bottom.
The experience damaged Alison's reputation and exposed her to ridicule from her peers and scrutiny from people who can now Google her, the family said in the lawsuit.
"It's the tag line; it's derogatory," said Damon Chang, 27. "A lot of her church friends saw it."
Umm, somebody sends their daughter to church camp and gets upset that she returns with a reputation of being a virgin? Damn, I grew up in the wrong church!