Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

National Censorship Plan Offensive, Says Aussie Shadow Minister

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the shadow-minister-is-such-a-cool-title dept.

Censorship 116

downundarob writes "Senator Nick Minchin, the Australian Shadow Minister for broadband, communications and the digital economy, has written (or more likely a staffer has written) this interesting article on the Australian Federal Government's continued zeal to enforce ISP-level filtering in Australia. In the article he posits that 'Underlying the Rudd Government's plan to screen the internet is an offensive message: that parents cannot be trusted to mind their children online.' Meanwhile, we wait for filtering trials to start, trials that have been delayed and which have next-to-no support among the industry. Telstra BigPond — Australia's largest ISP — has refused to take part, comparing internet filtering to 'like trying to boil the ocean.' The third largest, iiNet, is prepared to participate to highlight flaws."

cancel ×

116 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

So... (4, Funny)

techno-vampire (666512) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596129)

So what he's saying is, this plan to censor the Internet is so offensive that it should be censored, right?

Re:So... (1, Flamebait)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596169)

I think it's more like, "Oh shit, McCain didn't win. Stand down! Wait until 2012 and try again!".

Hope we see rollbacks of that madness in the UK as well.

Re:So... (2, Interesting)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596473)

Don't kid yourself. Obama will also do anything to protect his flock including an electric fence up despite the fact that some of them are sheepdogs that neither need nor want his protection.

Re:So... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596779)

What does McCain have to do with Australia?

Re:So... (5, Funny)

jasontheking (124650) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597507)

they sell frozen peas

Re:So... (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26598463)

And toasters.

Re:So... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26600747)

they sell frozen toasters?

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26598949)

I've seen the "McCain" brand frozen veggies at the store recently. I specifically refuse to buy them; they'll probably be all dried-out, tasteless, and devoid of relevance, just like their namesake. :p

Re:So... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596333)

Let's look at it from another angle.

The censorship plan is really a giant signal to Internet bad guys that Australian law enforcement and intelligence gathering sucks, and that there is a disconnect between policy makers and intelligence gathers/LE. Anyone within the intelligence community would be able to point out that the smart bad guys would get around the censorship via technical or tactical means; that should have been enough to scrap the plan if their true goal was to stop the supposed bad guys.

So that leaves us with a couple of other hypotheses as to what their true aims are. One possible hypothesis is that there are other goals for this program. Possibly BIG-GOV surveillance, like the NSA program in the USA.

One thing is for sure, once this program goes through it sure as shit won't matter to my slow assed, and continually dropping out, optus connection.

Re:So... (4, Insightful)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597633)

The plan is entirely for the purpose of keeping fundie senators who hold the balance of power on-side. It's not meant to actually work. They have to try as hard as they can before admitting failure, meanwhile getting the fundie to help pass their legislation while they're stringing him along.

Re:So... (1)

Sparx139 (1460489) | more than 5 years ago | (#26603445)

I agree. And on top of that, the "think of the children" campaign is a free kick for any political party. It makes the government look good to those without any knowledge of computers or the internet.

Re:So... (2, Informative)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596947)

The current plan goes against every value that our society is built upon.

Re:So... (2, Informative)

Merusdraconis (730732) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597133)

Dude, Australia started off as a prison. It's right in line with the values Australian society was built upon: wowserism.

To Americans: yes. This is a real name for a political philosophy.

Re:So... (1)

Dan541 (1032000) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597519)

No, it didn't.

Mod parent up (2, Informative)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597643)

As an Australian, I can tell you that the comment is entirely accurate and in no way trolling.

Re:Mod parent up (1)

kirbysuperstar (1198939) | more than 5 years ago | (#26598071)

Sad but true.

Re:So... (2, Informative)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26598479)

Dude, Australia started off as a prison.

So did Georgia.

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597085)

Censorship is always offensive. It starts with one person or one group declaring that they hold the superior view and way of life. They do not.

Of course he does (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596147)

he's an opposition minister. It's the job of the opposition to bitch and whine and pretend they would be any better if they were in office.

CF Obama, Barack

Re:Of course he does (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596167)

Doesn't mean he isn't right

Trying to boil the ocean (1)

MillionthMonkey (240664) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596203)

I'm sure I could do it if I really applied myself and the water weren't so salty.

has written (or more likely a staffer has written) (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596213)

Why did you feel you had to mention this? The authorship credit is to Minchin, not J. Random Staffer, not Kevin Rudd.

Stick to the facts.

Re:has written (or more likely a staffer has writt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596383)

I took that as being a jab at Julie Bishop. Could be wrong though.

Mulatto Obama IQ (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596253)

Hundreds of IQ tests administered by every level of government and the US army for the past 100 years shows that the average American Negro IQ is 15-20 points lower than the average American Caucasian. Mulattoes like Obama outperform other Negroes on average, but still below Caucasians.

Among Negroes and Caucasians who graduate from college, their average is substantially higher than their overall group averages. However, the IQ gap between Caucasian college graduates and Negro college graduates exceeds 20 points in most studies.

Get the facts.

Re:Mulatto Obama IQ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596755)

You're an idiot. You wouldn't know the facts if they honked you on the nose.

Shadow Minister (4, Funny)

Nyeerrmm (940927) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596269)

As an American, I must say, we need to take a look at this nomenclature: Shadow Minister sounds so much cooler than Senate Minority Leader or the like.

It helps when the guy has an ounce of sense too...

Re:Shadow Minister (1)

tcolberg (998885) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596373)

Jesus Christ, Australia! In an earlier /. article, it was a Minister of Censorship. Now, it was a Shadow Minister.

What's next, Prime Minister Voldemort?

Re:Shadow Minister (5, Funny)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596393)

No, logically, the prime minister has to be a Vorlon.

Re:Shadow Minister (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26597201)

And it's sheer coincidence that Kosh and KRudd start with the same letter ???

Re:Shadow Minister (1)

Mag7 (69118) | more than 5 years ago | (#26601727)

tr/Vl/M/d

Re:Shadow Minister (3, Informative)

grim-one (1312413) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597119)

A shadow minister is a member of the opposition (the party that didn't win in our two-party system) who follows the actions of the elected minister (from the party that won). Generally they just criticise everything the actual minister does to try and make them look bad.

Re:Shadow Minister (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596407)

As an Australian, its a laughable story, particularly given that the then (1999) Communication's Minister, and orchestrator of this mess, Senator Richard Alston, came from the same Liberal Party that is currently complaining about it from the opposition.

A high level history is available via the Electronic Frontiers Australia [efa.org.au] site.

If you look deeper, however, the joke is ironic because the Liberals only introduced the Bill to buy Independant, Senator Brian Harradine's, vote on the GST Tax Bill that they were so desperate to push. The sting in the tail being that Harradine voted against both the GST and Internet Censorship Bills because he felt that the Censorship Bill was too soft.

See the Report to members for Annual General Meeting 1999 [efa.org.au] ;

This was the year that the Federal Government sacrificed the future of Australian e-commerce and its reputation as an Internet early-adopter by attempting to censor the Internet from the bunkers in Canberra. The Broadcasting Services (Online Services) Act 1999 was a transparent inducement to Senator Brian Harradine to pass the Government's GST and Telstra legislation, the Government feigning a sudden interest in "adult" material online. It failed to achieve its political purpose - Harradine voted against both bills, and milder legislation later passed with the support of the Australian Democrats. However, the Government, and Senator Richard Alston in particular, were so captured by their own rhetoric that the censorship bill proceeded into law as an exercise in political muscle. Last-minute amendments urged on the Government by the Internet Industry Association have made an unworkable law even more uncertain, arbitrary and unfit for its stated purpose of protecting children from unsuitable material.

Australian's let us rejoice ..

Re:Shadow Minister (4, Informative)

TapeCutter (624760) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596903)

Bloody oath! Now it's Labor turn to suck up to an independent nutjob [wikipedia.org] who gained 2% of the popular vote but potentially holds the balance of power in the senate. The irony is that both major parties helped him defeat the green candidate who would otherwise have easily won the seat.

Thankfully my prediction that this BS will continue to go nowhere seems to be panning out - it's like the two major parties have agreed to an endless and distracting debate that does little except keep the moralising minority busy.

Re:Shadow Minister (1)

powerspike (729889) | more than 5 years ago | (#26601525)

It's all smoke and mirrors so that nobody relizes the ruling party is doing nothing real, and when they do, it's putting us into a bigger hole

Re:Shadow Minister (1)

G Morgan (979144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597127)

These are facts and thus have no place here on Slashdot. Somebody should censor this post.

Re:Shadow Minister (2, Informative)

MadMidnightBomber (894759) | more than 5 years ago | (#26601637)

came from the same Liberal Party

And please remember, when the Aussies say "Liberal" they mean "not very liberal at all".

Re:Shadow Minister (3, Funny)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596499)

Simple, it's like in Linux, the Shadow Minister is the secret minister with the real power behind the publicly-readable Prime Minister.

Mod the parent TROLL (-1, Offtopic)

gavron (1300111) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597163)

> Simple, it's like in Linux, the Shadow Minister is the secret minister with the real power behind the publicly-readable Prime Minister.

TROLL.

Mods: Please mod the parent TROLL. IT contributes nothing to the discussion, is irrelevant, divisive, and makes no sense.

Ehud

Re:Mod the parent TROLL (0, Offtopic)

mazarin5 (309432) | more than 5 years ago | (#26599493)

The /etc/passwd file also contains information like user ID's and group ID's that are used by many system programs. Therefore, the /etc/passwd file must remain world readable. If you were to change the /etc/passwd file so that nobody can read it, the first thing that you would notice is that the ls -l command now displays user ID's instead of names!

The Shadow Suite solves the problem by relocating the passwords to another file (usually /etc/shadow). The /etc/shadow file is set so that it cannot be read by just anyone. Only root will be able to read and write to the /etc/shadow file. Some programs (like xlock) don't need to be able to change passwords, they only need to be able to verify them. These programs can either be run suid root or you can set up a group shadow that is allowed read only access to the /etc/shadow file. Then the program can be run sgid shadow.

By moving the passwords to the /etc/shadow file, we are effectively keeping the attacker from having access to the encoded passwords with which to perform a dictionary attack.

http://tldp.org/HOWTO/Shadow-Password-HOWTO-2.html [tldp.org]

Re:Shadow Minister (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26597189)

Not even close. Shadow minister is another term for "opposition" minister. In this case, imagine it were the Republican minister for Communications complaining about the actions of the Democrat minister for communications (both our countries are run by the (supposedly) less conservative majority party).

In other words: AMERICANS: "SHADOW" MINISTER DOES NOT MEAN WHAT YOU THINK IT MEANS. IT REFERS TO THE MINISTER OF THE PARTY WHO DIDN'T WIN THE ELECTION, WHO HOLDS THE PORTFOLIO IN QUESTION. IN THIS CASE, IT REFERS TO THE PERSON WHO WOULD BE THE COMMUNICATIONS MINISTER IF THE OTHER PARTY HAD WON (just like your country, there are only 2 parties with any real chance). IT DOES NOT MEAN KARL ROVE.

Re:Shadow Minister (3, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597143)

As an American, I must say, we need to take a look at this nomenclature: Shadow Minister sounds so much cooler than Senate Minority Leader or the like.

Under our system of government the party currently not in power runs a complete standby government. It is quite a good system because when you come to vote you already have a good idea of who will be in the important posts.

On the down side, ministers have to be members of parliament so their skills will be more limited than in the US system where the president seems to have the power to pick people from the broader population.

Re:Shadow Minister (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26597419)

Except that in practice it doesn't give you any idea, because when a new government is elected the positions are immediately reshuffled.

Re:Shadow Minister (2, Insightful)

tdelaney (458893) | more than 5 years ago | (#26600479)

No - Minchin does not have any sense. It's just the "broken clock" principle at work here - the government's position is *so* wrong, that the opposition's default position of denigrating *anything* the government does (or proposes) happens to be right.

BTW, the current government was much the same when they were in opposition - in fact, their lack of *effective* opposition was a major reason they were in opposition so long. The NSW Liberal/National coalition (the conservatives) are in the same position - the current NSW government should have easily lost the last two elections, but the opposition has been so inept that Labor has won by default each time. I'm a socialist, but I would have voted for the Libs in NSW if they'd been able to put *any* kind of effective opposition together.

Of course, the majority of what Johnny's government did was wrong on so many levels. Johnny had a plan to turn us into his ideal "nasty society", and to a large extent it worked. It's going to take a long time for the healing.

Re:Shadow Minister (1)

Heian-794 (834234) | more than 5 years ago | (#26603067)

As an American, I must say, we need to take a look at this nomenclature: Shadow Minister sounds so much cooler than Senate Minority Leader or the like.

Hey, we've got Whips [senate.gov] , which are almost as cool.

I fully expect to see (by AD 2505 when Idiocracy is in full swing, perhaps) a House of Representin' in which legislation features full-on battles between teleporting Shadow Ministers and weapon-wielding Whips. C-SPAN's ratings should go sky high!

He's right! (4, Funny)

Veggiesama (1203068) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596291)

This national censorship plan is so offensive that no one should ever hear about it again!

I propose that we censor it! Think of the children!

haha boil the ocean (3, Insightful)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596309)

it's about the only clever thing to come out of telstra.

it's amusing to watch Obama atm, we had a very similar flurry of hope and dreams when Rudd was elected here. now look what we have, internet censorship, rolling back of benefits to seniors and families having babies and a string of empty promises.

give it just a little time and that shine will rub off revealing the politician underneth.

You think like a ReThuglican Jew (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596337)

You think like a ReThuglican Jew

Re:haha boil the ocean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596511)

it's amusing to watch Obama atm, we had a very similar flurry of hope and dreams when Rudd was elected here. now look what we have, internet censorship, rolling back of benefits to seniors and families having babies and a string of empty promises

The Obama and Rudd situation reminds me of when the Tories in the UK got voted out and NewLab got in. We were cheering, not because Blair won, but because the Tories lost.

Re:haha boil the ocean (1)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596553)

Didn't [youtube.com]
Take [youtube.com]
Long [slashdot.org]

Re:haha boil the ocean (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26597171)

Well well. I watched the first video.

The content was far from the title "Obama allows airstrikes in Pakistan! 17 killed". The content said that there have been over 30 similar strikes there within the past year. It also says that the former president Bush has had an agreement with the CIA that not every strike needs to get specific agreement from the president if they are certain of the target and Obama currently has the same.

It is very understandable if Obama haven't yet had time to change all such things. Yes, it isn't good but less than a week to his presidency it is understandable.

Then I watched the 2nd video. I can't really understand how anyone could see that the content was anyways bad. There is some complete speculation on what might happen if Obama decides to allow torture afterall though he just denied it and then complaining that he hasn't yet closed down some prisons in afghanistan...

Re:haha boil the ocean (1)

wellingj (1030460) | more than 5 years ago | (#26599079)

Awww man, I go trolling and I get and AC. Lame.

Re:haha boil the ocean (1)

Techman83 (949264) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596785)

Don't forget the damned Alcopop Tax. Not Happy!

Re:haha boil the ocean (3, Informative)

kaos07 (1113443) | more than 5 years ago | (#26603295)

What a rubbish post. "Rolling back of benefits"? Er no. Seniors are actually receiving thousands of dollars in cash bonus' on top of their fortnightly stipends and this is to pre-empt the conclusion in the report into pensions due for release in the next few months. As for "families having babies" you're presumably talking about the means test for the baby bonus. Prior to the means test, everyone who had a baby got a cheque for $5000 - a blatant bribe. Now, that cheque is only available for people earning less than $150,000, which frankly, is still way to high.

Australlian school children watch porn on mobiles (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596335)

Stud dogs go about the whole sex thing rather differently than primates (or equines). Unlike us, male canines don't have an orgasm that involves a short, intense ejaculation. Instead, once they have become fully erect, they will have a continuous orgasm for from 10 to 45 minutes or longer. The "standard" procedure for dogs, when they are mating, is that the male "ties" with the bitch - which means that, after he has penetrated fully, his penis will develop a knot at its base that is several times wider than the rest of his shaft.

For reference, a 80 pound Golden stud dog might have, let's say, a cock that is 7 or 8 inches long when erect - but his knot will be at least as big around as a tennis ball. This knot swells inside the bitch, and so long as he remains erect the dogs are "tied." No, this isn't painful for her - canine females long ago developed an entire set of muscular supports for this process. Generally, once they are tied, most stud dogs prefer to step off and over, so he and the bitch are tail-to-tail. Theories abound on why this evolved - I have yet to see one that was truly convincing. Anyway, they'll stand like this, with the male having a continuous orgasm during the whole tie - until he starts to shrink and they pop apart. Bitches also have orgasms, and she'll likely have quite a few during the tie, as well - research has shown that her orgasms are essential to increasing the chances of pregnancy, due to muscular contractions.

Anyway. if a guy like me has a stud dog partner, one form of intimacy is for him to tie with us, anally. As young teenagers, many of us learned the hard way about the knot, and the tie - particularly back in pre-interweb days. So we'd suddenly find ourselves locked together, with this tennis-ball width cock inside us. Nowadays, I suspect most young zoos know all about this. However, some folks still have eyes bigger than their stomach, err their you-know-what.

It would not be accurate to say that I have a stream of visitors who show up at my house just for sex with my canine partners. However, it is true that I do not exercise any sort of unilateral control/ownership over the relationships my canine boys might develop with other people - they are adults, and if they desire to get frisky with another two-legger and I judge that the person is respectful and unlikely to do anything mean or stupid, I have no moral ground on which to say "oh, no, you aren't allowed - he can only have sex with me." That just makes no sense, so if there's a time when a friend is visiting and there's a spark between them and one of my partners, I'm ok with that. In truth, I think it's great to have the boys' enjoy other positive relationships and I love to see them happy, whatever the circumstances.

Many years ago, my friend Barack Obama was visiting - a zoo who had been active with his own stud dog for quite a few years. His boy was a breed that is not small, but is also somewhat known by old-school zoos as being, well, on average not so well-endowed relative to their body size. This friend had tied with his partner on a number of occasions - and he often talked about how intense and rewarding the experience was, for both of them. That's great, I said - while thinking that he'd probably not fare so well with a larger breed.

As it turns out, Barack one of my canine friends hit it off quite clearly right from the get-go - the chemistry was there and the two of them seemed like they'd known each other for ages. After several visits, I could see that they were sort of getting closer and closer - my friend Barack was worried that I'd feel he was somehow intruding into my relationship with this handsome stud dog - who had been in my own family for close to a decade. Of course not, I told him - if you guys hit it off and things get steamy, I'd hardly throw cold water on it just so I can be all possessive and insecure. HOWEVER, I warned him, that handsome boy with whom you're making goo-goo eyes is much bigger than your own long-time partner.

I tried to be nice about this, but some zoos get their nose out of joint if you suggest their beloved might not be the most-endowed canine (or equine, or whatever) around. Barack was a bit like that - and right off the bat tried to convince me his boy was "really quite large for his body size," and who was I to argue? I did warn him that the stud dog he was considering, in my family, was somewhat over-endowed for his body size - and he was in the range of 120 pounds of low-bodyfat muscle. Beh, my friend said, no problem - I know what I'm doing. . .

Later that evening, after I'd gone to bed, I woke to the sound of toenails on the hardwood floor. There was also a bit of panting, a giggle here and there - not hard to figure out what was going on. Feeling a sense of impending doom, I made my presence known and sort of lurked in the background, sitting on the sofa and enjoying the huge, nearly-full moon casting shadows on the farm. The two boys were doing some sort of foreplay - it seemed cute to me, but I did (once again) warn Barack that this particular stud dog was also rather aggressive in his breeding - he'd sired many litters of wonderful pups, in his own career, and knew quite well how to get a proper tie with even inexperienced or skittish bitches. Yeah, yeah - Barack was clearly not thinking with the had between his shoulders, but the one between his legs.

In a flash, the big stud dog was mounted on Barack - and this time he wasn't just going through the motions, or playing. In just a few thrusts, he was inside - and with all that muscle, he held himself tight as he began to swell. It doesn't take long - maybe 20 seconds. I'm still watching, from the sofa, somewhere between shocked and bemused. For the first ten seconds or so, Barack is quiet and still as a winter night - not a sound save the deep grunting from my stud dog as he was swelling with each heartbeat.

Then, reality started to intrude (pun intended). Barack Obama started to make this sort of whimpering sound - no words, just a low moan. Too late to turn back, I knew, so I held my tongue. Then, as my stud dog really began to take on his full size (which I knew from years of firsthand enjoyment was just under 10 inches in length with a knot just shy of softball size), my two-legged friend began to realize the error of his ways. This stud dog was, quite likely, at least double the width of his normal canine partner - and 3 or 4 inches longer. And, as reality is dawning on him, each heartbeat is causing the cock inside him to get bigger. . . and bigger. . . and bigger.

By now, Obama's positively crying - literally crying like a baby. No words, just sort of a quiet blubbering. He's smart enough to know there's no backing out now - and he didn't try anything stupid like pulling loose (which can, indeed, cause massive rectal tearing if done in haste - trust me, not fun). At this point my canine friend casually steps off from the usual "doggie style" position and, with years of practice, adjusts himself into the butt-to-butt position. And to add insult to (literal) injury, my canine friend has now plastered an absolutely massive grin on his face - when we say "shit-eating grin," this is it He's having the time of his life, tied with a new friend he's met, just starting into an orgasm that will go on for nearly 20 minutes. Not only does he not really know that his **** buddy is feeling like someone's put the better part of a baseball bat up his ass. . . I'm quite sure he doesn't care.

Just for good measure, I took a photo of the gigantic smile on the stud dog's face - nothing more than that, just his face and the grin to end all grins. Click.

My two-legged friend Obama is now officially gibbering - it's really a verb, I didn't know that before just then. He's somehow begging for it to "stop, oh please stop" - but every now and then there's an "oh god oh GOD he's amazing" thrown in, before he's back to "oh PLEASE make it stop OOOH stop stop stop." This goes on, as is par for the course, for just shy of 20 minutes, at which point my stud dog friend begins to subside, pops free (with a characteristically loud and gushing dis-connection), and lies down to clean himself up and help his cock back into its sheath.

In contrast, my two-legged friend has simply fallen over, and curled up into a fetal ball. Well, I think to myself, I don't see any blood. . . oh, wait, I do see blood, but not really that much so it's probably ok. I get him a blanket and try to offer kindness without intruding on his pain, and to be honest without s******ing. The words "I told you so" are hovering out there, but need not be spoken at that somewhat awkward time. I do ask: "are you going to be ok, or should we head to hospital?" In between ragged breaths, he responds "no hospital, not going to die" - and indeed my own judgment is that he's far from dying, though he may feel like that would be preferable to the pain he's in.

I get him a blanket, and a pillow and get him comfortable right there on the hardwood floor of the kitchen. And our canine Casanova? Well he's cleaned up, wandered over to give a big, wet, shameless kiss to his worse-for-the-wear sexual partner and he's already asleep on the sofa, snoring - with grin still present on his face. Remorse? Regret? Not a chance!

The next day, I was impressed to see that my guest was up and at the kitchen table, with his well-endowed playmate from the previous night sharing a dish of eggs and toast, when I came downstairs with the rest of the canine crew. Impressed, that is, until I noticed he wasn't in any rush to get up from the table - ever. Turns out, Barack had indeed suffered some serious internal bruising - in a few days, the discoloration has spread from his lower back (which still makes me laugh, sorry, because I can visualize exactly how far in that cock had gone and, sure enough, that's where the bruise mellows out - a good bit of the way up his back and towards his ribs) down his legs, and clear to his ankles. Both legs. It's spectacular. He's walking like a rehabbed accident victim for several days, and for weeks afterwards he looks as if he'd ridden a horse for too long (again, laughing as I type). It was more than a month before he'd healed up more or less ok, and even then I'd see him wince if he bent down too quickly.

Is it wrong for me to think this is funny? If it is, so be it - it's ****ing funny. The transformation from swaggering "oh I can take that big boy, I know what I'm doing" to hunched-over victim of a mind-expanding lesson in what "big" means when applied to stud dogs - all in the blink of an eye. Yes, it's definitely funny.

Of course, in those early weeks, he promised me he would NEVER do something like that again - NEVER tie with a dog bigger than his own long-term partner. And, he asked me with genuine indignation, how could I keep tying with that dog who had torn him up so badly? Didn't I know the danger I was in? I responded, casually, that I appreciated his concerns but, to put perspective on things he should remember that his dog compared to that stud dog who tore him up so badly, in terms of relative size, the same way that the tearer-upper compared to my Dane partner at the time. His eyes grew wide - comprehension dawned. . . "you don't tie with that monster, do you?" I glanced over at my beloved Dane who, looking up at me, thumped his tail a few times in flagrant collusion with my own thoughts. "Who, me? Tie with that massive dog? Now what kind of crazy fool would do such a thing?"

How does this "protect the children"? (5, Interesting)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596345)

From the article:

The minister must start listening to the experts, who have repeatedly made the point that most predatory risks to children lurk in those areas of the online world this kind of filtering will do little to combat.

Blacklists and content scanning will have, at best, a negligible impact on child predators and pornographers. Any progress will be quickly negated as pedophiles adapt to the technology. Even proponents of the filter have to recognize that.

Given the enormous monetary and social costs, I can't believe this will ever really materialize. I'm sure some politicians exploited the issue for their own benefit, but I suspect the idea will either go away or be implemented in a symbolic, watered-down manner.

Re:How does this "protect the children"? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26597377)

Pedophiles adapt: "Hmm, I can't find pictures of naked kids... guess I'll just kidnap one myself"

Re:How does this "protect the children"? (2, Informative)

tapanitarvainen (1155821) | more than 5 years ago | (#26600219)

I can't believe this will ever really materialize. I'm sure some politicians exploited the issue for their own benefit, but I suspect the idea will either go away or be implemented in a symbolic, watered-down manner.

That's basically what happened in Finland: police maintains the blacklist and supplies it to the ISPs, who may or may not use it, and even those who do, will upon complaint generally just advice their clients how it can be bypassed (changing DNS server settings).

What's more, the list has been leaked to the public (now in wikileaks) - and it turned out some 90%+ of the sites censored aren't child porn at all (mostly just adult, especially gay porn, also some totally non-porn sites).

But it's not going away, rather they are "trying to improve" it and at the same time some people are suggesting it should be extended to other "undesirable material" in the net, including racist sites, net poker and pirate bay...

Censorship (2, Interesting)

candreacchio (1418793) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596363)

Well... The Senator for Censorship is becoming more and more unpopular in australia.... I was part of his trial for internet censorship (was... i switched ISP's) and let me say this... it was appalling the speeds we were getting.... I mean.. loading up google.com took at least 30 seconds on a decent speed broadband

Re:Censorship (2, Informative)

laptop006 (37721) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596395)

What trial? It hasn't happened.

*NO* general ISP has put it in place. I know, I work with several of them, and filled in the papers for my own employer (who does filtering for schools which is why I don't have a problem their).

Re:Censorship (1)

Gandalf_Greyhame (44144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596445)

What trial? It hasn't happened.

*NO* general ISP has put it in place. I know, I work with several of them, and filled in the papers for my own employer (who does filtering for schools which is why I don't have a problem their).

you work for schools? think you should go back there too

Re:Censorship (1)

laptop006 (37721) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596515)

They're our customers, and yes, I, like everyone screw up the English language on a regular basis, get over it.

Re:Censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596551)

But do you know where you screwed up?

Re:Censorship (2, Interesting)

Just because I'm an (847583) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597307)

Your apparent pride in having difficulty with English aside I suspect the other point of contention was your claim that no filtering had yet taken place.

You will find that infact some trials in Tasmania have already taken place and a report on the effectiveness, or otherwise, of that effort can be had here [somebodyth...ildren.com] .

Re:Censorship (1)

candreacchio (1418793) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597083)

Actually iinet have already put it in place

Shadow Government (3, Funny)

xrayspx (13127) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596387)

When your own Shadow Government thinks you've gone Too Far, perhaps you've fucking gone too far.

Re:Shadow Government (5, Informative)

!coward (168942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596519)

Umm.. at the risk of hearing a *woosh* in the next few seconds, I don't think "shadow" (in this context) means what you think it means.

Whenever you hear something like "the shadow minister for foreign affairs", they're referring to the guy (or gal) in the major opposition party who is their current "authority" in the field (in my example, foreign affairs), or at the most, in some cases, the person who's currently in line for that office should the opposition win the next general elections (or equivalent) and form government.

This is not some lower-level, deputy-minister/under-secretary type, who actually works for/in the government that's proposing this bill.

In other words, we're talking about the people who are trying to oust the current government, so it's no surprise that they take whatever opportunity they get to snipe at them. Besides, as others have pointed out above, they're not exactly squeaky-clean in this matter either, having proposed something similar in the past when they were in office (what's worse, they were allegedly doing it as some sort of a back-room deal to advance some other bill).

Other than that, couldn't agree more! :)

Re:Shadow Government (4, Funny)

xrayspx (13127) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596579)

I'm sorry to do it, but, yeah, *whoosh*.

I get that this guy isn't really a secret operative in some alien-human hybrid black-oil conspiracy. But the title of "Shadow Minister" does still imply such to those of us who watched a certain popular TV (TeleVision) show known as the X-Files in the 1990's.

It's OK though, because as we all know, jokes have been scientifically proven to be much funnier when they're fully explained, so for that I thank you :-)

Re:Shadow Government (1)

!coward (168942) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596633)

Lol.. Man, I totally missed it. It's been so long since I've watched the X-Files (refused to watch the last movie, wasn't really too keen on the last few seasons when they suddenly changed the "mythology") that I didn't make the connection. All is clear now! :)

i understand the nomenclature, but (2, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596743)

i still object to the term "shadow" anything, mainly because of the immediate gut negative reaction, that the post you were responding to alludes to. i listen to the bbc alot, and i constantly hear the term "shadow" used in terms of opposition politics, and i always scratch my head over the term

in the usa, there is no pro-abortion movement, there is a "pro-choice" movement

in the usa, there is no anti-abortion movement, there is a "pro-life" movement

there aren't even used cars anymore. they are all "certified pre-owned"

the whole point is, people have negative gut reactions to certain words, and so, such words are avoided for public relations reasons. in fact, governments and poliicians are usually most sensitive to this phenomenon, and are very antagonistic to angry or creepy sounding phrases and words and negative connotations, and the first to propose alternative phraseology with a very vague touchy feeling positivism about it

so it feels very weird to me to hear anyone in politics or government referred to as "shadow" anything without protesting and using an alternative term. i would, in fact, bet on seeing a slow scaling down and fading away of the term "shadow" anything in respect to government terminology. i mean heck, why not call him "sith lord"?

creepy and vague terminology is not a winner in political contexts. call him the "alternative minister" or the "new way minister", but not the "shadow minister"

Re:i understand the nomenclature, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26597113)

Kind of like the difference between "toilet" and "restroom". People from the USA are afraid of words and increasingly... everything.

Re:i understand the nomenclature, but (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 5 years ago | (#26598041)

Hehe true that.

What's really funny is that in Australia, the toilet is typically in a small room by itself (separate from the bathroom/restroom - whereas in the US it's almost universally in the same room as the shower/bath/basin etc).

So if you have an American guest here in Australia, they might ask "where's the bathroom" (when they really want to go to the toilet). So you tell them. And a while later they come back looking confused and ask again ... "where's the bathroom?". Takes you a while sometimes to realise what they are actually looking for is the toilet!

Re:i understand the nomenclature, but (2, Informative)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597167)

I don't think the term is going anywhere soon in Australia. It is pretty well entrenched. You can use a sporting analogy if you like. Player 1 takes up a position on the field. Player 2 from the other team takes up the opposite position and sticks like a shadow to player 1.

Re:i understand the nomenclature, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26597481)

I think that any Australian politician who publicly voices opposition to being called a "shadow minister", runs the risk of forever being labeled with a much worse title: "wanker".

Re:i understand the nomenclature, but (1)

Cimexus (1355033) | more than 5 years ago | (#26598023)

I can see where you're coming from but that argument only holds if 'shadow' actually does evoke these gut reactions. In Australia, its such a standard term for the opposition minister with the same portfolio, that it doesn't have those connotations. People are just too used to hearing it in this context.

If anything, when I think of 'shadow minister', I think of someone who is 'shadowing', or keeping in check, the actual minister. As someone suggested, like someone opposite you on a playing field or basketball court. That word simply doesn't give me any gut reaction along the lines of 'sinister' or whatever.

The terminology is hundreds of years old and isn't being 'scaled down' at all. It's as strong as it's ever been. So yeah, I don't see it going anywhere. To me, 'alternative' minister sounds weirder ... I just think of 'alternative' lifestyles or drugs etc, lol.

Back on topic though, it's nice to see what I always thought would happen to this Internet filtering scheme happening. It'll get held up in the Senate and die a quiet death, as the government knows it was a hugely unpopular move to begin with.

Everyone can see it was never going to work. And I'm still confident that, despite all the hype on Slashdot etc (OMG Australians are turning into the Chinese, what's going on down there!), this will never, ever get off the ground. It would slow down access, has a huge false positive rate, is trivial to circumvent, is massively unpopular even among non-tech people, and in the current economic downturn, the cost cannot be justified. Not to mention every Australian ISP has publicly stated they will refuse to participate and will fight tooth and nail to stop it happening (it's bad for their business, after all!)

And thank you slashdot (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 5 years ago | (#26601753)

but that argument only holds if 'shadow' actually does evoke these gut reactions. In Australia, its such a standard term for the opposition minister with the same portfolio, that it doesn't have those connotations.

In fact, until TFS, the comicbook-geek second meaning had never occurred to me. So thank you American slashdotters.

To repay you, may I point out that the Shadow Communication Minister is a member of the Shadow Cabinet, ultimately answerable to The Leader of The Opposition, who once led the movement to bring in a Republic and overthrow the foreign empire! (But he failed.)

Re:Shadow Government (2, Informative)

Cinnaman (954100) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597013)

Or a simpler way of putting it is that the opposition party forms their own "cabinet" that mirrors the real portfolios (eg Environment Minister, Treasurer).
A way of saying "if we were in power right now this is who would be Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy", in Nick Minchin's example.

Re:Shadow Government (1)

highways (1382025) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596619)

Shadow minsters **always** think the government has gone too far (or not far enough).

Some would say it's their job.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Cabinet [wikipedia.org]

I emailed the Prime Minister (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596581)

Just before Christmas I emailed the Prime Minister of Australia twice. I got a reply (from Stephen Conroy!) yesterday.

--

Contact your Prime Minister -- Thank you for your message to the Prime Minister. Below is a copy of your comments to the Prime Minister for your records.

Senator Conroy is suggesting that peer-to-peer network traffic will be actively monitored and censored when appropriate. Most people would, at first glance, find this acceptable to catch the bad guys. The implications, however, are a bit more far reaching.

An example. The company I work for uses a Virtual Private Network (VPN). We use this to âoelink upâ our geographically separated offices. The way VPN works is that a network device in, say, my office connects directly to another network device at my head office. VPN is peer-to-peer networking. Communications between an ATM and the bank is peer-to-peer networking. Intra-government communications between networks is peer-to-peer networking.

What Senator Conroy is suggesting is that communications between the two VPN devices will be monitored and censored when necessary. How is that different to phone tapping?

To censor content you have to assess the content. To assess the content a person or computer has to read the content. To read the content being passed back and forth between two private computers (peer-to-peer communications) you have to intercept those messages. So, in effect, Conroyâ(TM)s solution is that all private communications amongst individuals or corporations will be monitored (read). Is this even legal without a court order? The solution proposed by Conroy is wiretapping without a court order.

Why is this person (Conroy) allowed to make such outrageous suggestions? This needs to be made known to people. A person who does not understand technology or law should not be making these decisions.

Re:I emailed the Prime Minister (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596591)

Oops. I didn't paste the reply in my comment. What I pasted is my original email to the PM.

Re:I emailed the Prime Minister (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596689)

uh so what was the reply u dum niggr

Re:I emailed the Prime Minister (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596761)

Internet filtering
Thank you for your correspondence concerning internet service provider (ISP) filtering.
I appreciate your interest in this important issue.
I am aware that the issue of ISP filtering has attracted criticism from people who are concerned that it will lead to censorship of the internet.
Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society. For many years however, most Australians have accepted that there is some material which is not acceptable, particularly for children.
The genesis of this is in civil society where social conflict is governed by the imposition of rules that restrain citizens from harming one another and society as a whole accepts that the public interest requires that those rules are enforced.
This is why we have the National Classification Scheme (the Scheme) for classifying films, computer games, and publications. Under the Scheme, it is illegal to distribute, sell or make available for hire material that is classified Refused Classification (RC).
The internet is already subject to regulation which prevents ISPs or other internet content providers from hosting prohibited content as defined under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 within Australia. Prohibited content is determined by reference to the Scheme.
We also have strong criminal laws aimed at preventing people from possessing or distributing material relating to child sexual abuse, including over the internet.
The Australian Government recognises that the internet is an essential tool for all Australian children through which they can exchange information, be entertained, socialise and do school work and research. The ability to use online tools effectively provides both a skill for life and the means to acquire new skills.
Cyber-safety commitment
The Government has committed $125.8 million over the next four years to a comprehensive range of cyber-safety measures, including law enforcement, filtering and education. Measures include:
â Expansion of the Australian Federal Police (AFP) Child Protection Operations Team - funding to detect and investigate online child sex exploitation;
â Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions - funding to help deal with the increased activity resulting from the work of the AFP to ensure that prosecutions are handled quickly;
2
â ISP-level filtering - funding to develop and implement ISP filtering, including undertaking a real world âliveâ(TM) pilot;
â Education activities - funding to the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) to implement a comprehensive range of education activities;
â Websites / Online helpline - funding to ACMA to improve current government cyber-safety website resources and to make them easier for parents to use, and to provide up-to-date information. ACMA will also develop a childrenâ(TM)s cyber-safety website to provide information specifically for children, and improve the online helpline to provide a quick and easy way for children to report online incidents that cause them concern;
â Consultative Working Group - funding for an expanded Consultative Working Group. This group will consider the broad range of cyber-safety issues and advise the Government, to ensure properly developed and targeted policy initiatives;
â Youth Advisory Group - funding for a Youth Advisory Group which will provide advice to the Consultative Working Group on cyber-safety issues from a young personâ(TM)s perspective; and
â Research - funding for ongoing research into the changing digital environment to identify issues and target future policy and funding.
International cooperation in regard to online safety is crucial. The Government is pursuing an international agenda for collaborative action on cyber-safety. Progress on this was made through my recent engagement at the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) forum in Seoul in June 2008. The Seoul Declaration for the Future of the Internet Economy states that participating economies agree to âEnsure a trusted Internet-based environment which offers protection to individuals, especially minors and other vulnerable groupsâ(TM).
Education
The above initiatives will tackle the issue of cyber-safety from a number of directions. More importantly, this approach is based on the key role parents and carers have in the online safety of children, and provides them with the necessary information to assist with this task.
In particular, ACMAâ(TM)s Outreach program has been expanded to provide additional general cyber-safety awareness presentations to teachers, parents and students which highlight the key issues and strategies to minimise potential online risks. The program will also include professional development on online safety issues for existing and trainee school teachers.
ISP filtering
A part of the Governmentâ(TM)s plan is to examine the introduction of ISP-level filtering.
The Governmentâ(TM)s policy will be developed through an informed and considered approach, including industry consultation and close examination of overseas models to assess their suitability for Australia.
Filtering technologies have been adopted by ISPs in a number of countries including the United Kingdom, Sweden, Norway and Finland, predominantly to filter child pornography. In these countries ISP filtering has not affected internet performance to a noticeable level.
3
Laboratory trial and live pilot
ACMA has completed a laboratory trial of a sample of the available ISP filtering technologies. The trial looked specifically at the effect of a range of filter products on network performance, effectiveness in identifying and blocking illegal content, scope to filter non-web traffic and the ability to customise the filter to the requirements of different end-users.
The laboratory trial indicated that ISP filtering products have developed in their performance and effectiveness since they were last assessed in 2005. The Government is now proceeding with a âliveâ(TM) pilot which will provide valuable information on the effectiveness and efficiency of filters installed in a âreal worldâ(TM) ISP network. The live pilot is proceeding in close consultation with the internet industry.
The Government is committed to working closely with the internet industry to address the concerns of network degradation, over and under blocking, circumvention and costs.
These concerns will be carefully considered during the pilot and will further inform the Governmentâ(TM)s cyber-safety policy.
The Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (the Department) has prepared material on a list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) regarding ISP filtering. This list is available on the Departmentâ(TM)s website at www.dbcde.gov.au/cybersafetyplan.
These FAQs will be updated regularly to provide you with the most up to date information on ISP filtering issues.
ACMA Blacklist
The existing ACMA blacklist is a list of internet web pages which are defined as âprohibitedâ(TM) under Australian legislation. The list has been in place since 2000 and currently contains around 1300 URLs.
ACMA has also negotiated agreement with the UK Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) facilitating access to the IWFâ(TM)s list of child abuse image URLs.
ACMA is also working with the Australian Federal Police to arrange access to the USA National Centre for Missing and Exploited Children list of child abuse image websites.
In consultations with ISPs, concerns have been raised that filtering a blacklist beyond
10 000 URLs may raise network performance issues, depending on the configuration of the filter. The pilot will therefore seek to also test network performance against a test list of
10 000 URLs.
This will be a closed network test and will not involve actual customers. The list of 10 000 sites will be developed by the technical organisation assisting the Department on the pilot, which has access to lists of this size. As this test is only being performed to test the impact on network performance against a list of this size, and actual customers are not involved, the make-up of the list is not an issue.
4
The ACMA blacklist is developed by complaints by the public about online content to the ACMA hotline. ACMA does not arbitrarily assess and classify content. Online content is assessed in accordance with the National Classification Scheme. The Scheme was established by the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995. Content which is the subject of a complaint is assessed by ACMA and in some instances referred to the National Classification Board for classification.
The ACMA complaints process has been established by the Australian Parliament through the Broadcasting Services Act 1992. If content is found to be prohibited and is hosted in Australia (i.e. located on a computer or server in Australia), ACMA will direct the content provider to remove or prevent access to the content. If content is found to be prohibited and is hosted overseas, ACMA must add the material to its blacklist.
ACMA officers and Classification Board members applying the Scheme are highly trained and apply criteria set out in the Schemeâ(TM)s legislative framework. Further, decisions made by the Classification Board can be reviewed by the Classification Review Board.
The scope of the definition of prohibited content in legislation cannot be expanded without changes to legislation being passed by Parliament.
Thank you for your interest in this matter. I hope this information will be of use.
Yours sincerely
Stephen Conroy
Minister for Broadband,
Communications and the Digital Economy

Re:I emailed the Prime Minister (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596871)

You know what? Fuck that Children, yeah I said it. I am tired of these little snot rags ruining it for the rest of us. Are parents so fucking stoned or lazy that they can't monitor their children? What the hell is Australia turning into. People give the United States a lot of shit but we have no where the level of bull in our ISP system. We have players like Comcast wanting to cut down on the amount of bandwidth used but that is for their own greedy selfish needs and not because the Government wants to sanitize everything in the same of little shit bags between the ages of 6 and 17. Wow a kid sees a titty or worse on the interwebs. Hey guess what, almost every kid has at the beginning of their life been pulled out of a stretched vagina and has breast fed. Anyway it always seems to be the most sheltered children turn into the hardest oversexed drug addict ready to shoot the next person who stands in the way of their next fix. So lets stop halting the progression and overall enjoyment of society because of some shitbag kid who will grow up as fucked up as the rest of it. For as long as there has been civilization there have been kids in those civilizations and they have grown up and done the same bullshit as their kin before them. The only thing that has changed are the tools of those civilization (technology, governments, worldview, etc). These snot rag 6-17 year olds are going to grow up to be the same assholes as we are and will attempt the same logical fallacy that they can change the next generation to follow the "right path" that they didn't get a chance to because of the adults of today. It's a stupid cycle and if we try to fuck with it, we will only make things worse. All anyone can do is parent your kid on an individual level, try to teach them some of values and guide them to becoming a productive member of society. Think about this for a second, why is it the guys with the outward appearance of being a saint have the most fucked up skeletons in their closet?

Re:I emailed the Prime Minister (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26597141)

Think about this for a second, why is it the guys with the outward appearance of being a saint have the most fucked up skeletons in their closet?

This is often the only way to tell.

It has always been this way.

Re:I emailed the Prime Minister (1)

DanJ_UK (980165) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597149)

Amen.

Re:I emailed the Prime Minister (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26600423)

You know what? Fuck that Children, yeah I said it. I am tired of these little snot rags ruining it for the rest of us. Are parents so fucking stoned or lazy that they can't monitor their children?

What the hell is Australia turning into. People give the United States a lot of shit but we have no where the level of bull in our ISP system. We have players like Comcast wanting to cut down on the amount of bandwidth used but that is for their own greedy selfish needs and not because the Government wants to sanitize everything in the same of little shit bags between the ages of 6 and 17. Wow a kid sees a titty or worse on the interwebs. Hey guess what, almost every kid has at the beginning of their life been pulled out of a stretched vagina and has breast fed.

Anyway it always seems to be the most sheltered children turn into the hardest oversexed drug addict ready to shoot the next person who stands in the way of their next fix. So lets stop halting the progression and overall enjoyment of society because of some shitbag kid who will grow up as fucked up as the rest of it.

For as long as there has been civilization there have been kids in those civilizations and they have grown up and done the same bullshit as their kin before them. The only thing that has changed are the tools of those civilization (technology, governments, worldview, etc). These snot rag 6-17 year olds are going to grow up to be the same assholes as we are and will attempt the same logical fallacy that they can change the next generation to follow the "right path" that they didn't get a chance to because of the adults of today.

It's a stupid cycle and if we try to fuck with it, we will only make things worse. All anyone can do is parent your kid on an individual level, try to teach them some of values and guide them to becoming a productive member of society. Think about this for a second, why is it the guys with the outward appearance of being a saint have the most fucked up skeletons in their closet?

See how that blob of text suddenly becomes readable with a few paragraph breaks? Of course, I'm using "readable" loosely here.

?....*taps foot, twiddles thumbs...* ?!? (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597613)

The suspense is killing me! :-)

All joking aside, what was his reply? Inquiring minds want to know!

Be careful, minister (5, Insightful)

papabob (1211684) | more than 5 years ago | (#26596783)

If parents cannot be trusted to mind their children online, they cannot be trusted to vote you in the next elections...

@ac (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26596911)

so he sent a form letter that had nothing to do with your comments?, nice to see he`s in touch...not!

why do we vote these cretins in?

Re:@ac (1)

Psychotria (953670) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597117)

*shrug* That's why I figured it was ok to post (i.e. it was a form letter). If he'd even mentioned my name I'd have thought twice about it.

i have my doubts (1)

enter to exit (1049190) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597097)

I dont think the filter will ever go past testing stage.

It'll be stagnant for a few years and when we've all forgotten about it, a press release will reveal it'll be delayed until further notice.

Except his lot were pushing the same thing! (0, Flamebait)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597619)

His words would be slightly more credible had the plan not originated with his lot, until they were kicked out in 2007, and then copied in its entirety by the present lot, for the same reason: to keep one fundamentalist Senator who just happens to hold the balance of power onside.

Boil the ocean? (2, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#26597767)

Telstra BigPond - Australia's largest ISP - has refused to take part, comparing internet filtering to 'like trying to boil the ocean.'

So? Seems pretty obvious to me. Just ask Sun to build the internet filters.

Re:Boil the ocean? (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 5 years ago | (#26601803)

Mod parent +1 Punny.

This is how it always works: (3, Insightful)

7-Vodka (195504) | more than 5 years ago | (#26598499)

This is how it always works:

When one party has control and the other is the opposition, the party with control moves forward the agenda and the opposition opposes it.

When an election happens and they switch sides, the new party in charge who used to be in opposition of the agenda now moves it forward while the party who is now out of power opposes it.

The agenda of world centralization of power and increasing control over the general public always moves forward.

Obama was foreign elected (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26600149)

Obama was elected by foreign powers, not locals. Your fault, not ours.
Screw it, you wanted my tax dollars but now dont like your election winner, Obama? Oh, thats right, he doesnt work for you any more.

An unhelpful article (1)

Dracophile (140936) | more than 5 years ago | (#26600723)

On the one hand Minchin refers to experts who say that the filtering will be of little help, and on the other hand he says that he installed a filter on his family computer to help protect his children.

Re:An unhelpful article (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | more than 5 years ago | (#26601851)

Don't forget, that was his sides contribution to internet censorship. Free government sanctioned (end-user installed) net filters. Hardly anyone wanted it (surprise), but he can't really say "neither did I".

Shadow Minister (1)

duckInferno (1275100) | more than 5 years ago | (#26601941)

He should reroll Retribution Minister, I hear they're quite overpowered at the moment.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>