HAhaha Lol i was sent a link from a mate who edited the wikipedia page with conroy to show rather um dirty pictures that he photoshopped :P
Uh, I'd be quite shocked if most of us in here didn't think that such vandals are deemed to be the similar sort of scum of the earth that graffiti vandals and bus/train window scratchers are.
Tis for those kinds of people that the acronym "FOAD" was prolly invented.
Lowest of low, isn't funny, should never be encouraged, and shame on those who do it or encourage it or give approval to it.
regarDS
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11
Anyone anti Filter were very quickly cut off.
Which should go a long way to informing you why, if not ILCF gets up, SOMETHING will.
Big business, especially business in relation to news media and the music/film industry, who also usually share a bed with The Government in order to get what they want, are ALL for Controlling teh interwub (:compromise, anyone ? :)
The pr0n angle is just a pragmatic means to an ends and a mere low down plat in a whip with a sting end you are yet to see.
The News media are faced with dwindling sales and advertising opportunities as their print form sales diminish and their online content goes out for free, so But Of Course they would like to see The Net being far more easier to control and extract an easy penny from.
The Music scene is continually suffering from p2p/sharing/piracy so would also love to see a more controllable Web in order to better extract what they rightfully feel is due them.
Same again with the film/visual media industries.
Ah, but you're never going to sell a filter to the masses by talking about controlling that sort of stuff – far better to sell it by talking about what at least most FEMALE members of a family want for their family. ie, making it hard for their children and HUSBANDS etc to access pr0n.
Take it as read that the FF (whom I voted for and agree with here and there) would ultimately like to (rightfully) see ALL pr0n removed from Oz eyes whether it be via the internut or via magazines in the news agents, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are a Yay crowd being ILCF ... and I reckon "Good on 'em" for it too.
So, what do we have ?
We have most normal/general families wanting to protect their families from the ready access to pr0n, and we have big businesses wanting to stop their profits being pirated away, and we have The Government which wants to keep the most number of voters happy whilst also keeping Big Businesess happy and making taxable profits, and maybe even helping make our society a nicer/better/safer thing.
Which generally translates back to "you lot waa, waa, waaing" about ILCF are baracking for the losing side".
While there is money to be made (that is currently being lost) out of The Net, and pressure on The Government to be seen to be making things better for "Working Families and their children", you're going to remain on a hiding to nothing and in fact are more likely to attact negative attention in the long run.
Yes, we all know that to begin with, the ILFC isn't going to help (or target in favour of) the Big Businesses I mentioned – but once the system/software is in ...
"unwanted material" ? Unwanted by whom. Big business ?
Bah, leave the internut to those wanting to make money out of it ... let's go back to something free and sociable and only use th McWeb when we actually need to, and even then, never in
support of it making money for someone else.
regarDS
Which should go a long way to informing you why, if not ILCF gets up, SOMETHING will.
Big business, especially business in relation to news media and the music/film industry, who also usually share a bed with The Government in order to get what they want, are ALL for Controlling teh interwub (:compromise, anyone ? :)
The pr0n angle is just a pragmatic means to an ends and a mere low down plat in a whip with a sting end you are yet to see.
The News media are faced with dwindling sales and advertising opportunities as their print form sales diminish and their online content goes out for free, so But Of Course they would like to see The Net being far more easier to control and extract an easy penny from.
The Music scene is continually suffering from p2p/sharing/piracy so would also love to see a more controllable Web in order to better extract what they rightfully feel is due them.
Same again with the film/visual media industries.
Ah, but you're never going to sell a filter to the masses by talking about controlling that sort of stuff – far better to sell it by talking about what at least most FEMALE members of a family want for their family. ie, making it hard for their children and HUSBANDS etc to access pr0n.
Take it as read that the FF (whom I voted for and agree with here and there) would ultimately like to (rightfully) see ALL pr0n removed from Oz eyes whether it be via the internut or via magazines in the news agents, so we shouldn't be surprised that they are a Yay crowd being ILCF ... and I reckon "Good on 'em" for it too.
So, what do we have ?
We have most normal/general families wanting to protect their families from the ready access to pr0n, and we have big businesses wanting to stop their profits being pirated away, and we have The Government which wants to keep the most number of voters happy whilst also keeping Big Businesess happy and making taxable profits, and maybe even helping make our society a nicer/better/safer thing.
Which generally translates back to "you lot waa, waa, waaing" about ILCF are baracking for the losing side".
While there is money to be made (that is currently being lost) out of The Net, and pressure on The Government to be seen to be making things better for "Working Families and their children", you're going to remain on a hiding to nothing and in fact are more likely to attact negative attention in the long run.
Yes, we all know that to begin with, the ILFC isn't going to help (or target in favour of) the Big Businesses I mentioned – but once the system/software is in ...
"unwanted material" ? Unwanted by whom. Big business ?
Bah, leave the internut to those wanting to make money out of it ... let's go back to something free and sociable and only use th McWeb when we actually need to, and even then, never in
support of it making money for someone else.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11
The problem is centralised communication networks are far too easy to be taken over, subverted to the will of a government or other authority.
Exactly my point from way back in the piece.
I see the concept of the "internet" evolving, either with a greater effort to undermine government control, or with cheaper, more powerful transceiver, individuals seeking to make their own internet.
Ditto.
What about the days of BBS? An enterprising fella living on a hill could roll out their own wireless BBS, charge a access fee and start rolling out small leased line circuits connecting to other like minded types.
For our W.A. participants, a visit to http://www.wafreenet.org
and http://www.e3.com.au (Hi JJ) may be in order to see (and even participate in) what chugs is talking about.
Sometimes the way forward is to back-track a bit, with the keys to the future to be found in the past.
However, I personally reckon that if an individual has something to fear and/or lose some access to thanks to ILCF, then they were probably up to no good in the first place. I really can't see it affecting any of my Browsing and internut habits other than in a mostly positive way.
WWJB ? :)
regarDS
Exactly my point from way back in the piece.
I see the concept of the "internet" evolving, either with a greater effort to undermine government control, or with cheaper, more powerful transceiver, individuals seeking to make their own internet.
Ditto.
What about the days of BBS? An enterprising fella living on a hill could roll out their own wireless BBS, charge a access fee and start rolling out small leased line circuits connecting to other like minded types.
For our W.A. participants, a visit to http://www.wafreenet.org
and http://www.e3.com.au (Hi JJ) may be in order to see (and even participate in) what chugs is talking about.
Sometimes the way forward is to back-track a bit, with the keys to the future to be found in the past.
However, I personally reckon that if an individual has something to fear and/or lose some access to thanks to ILCF, then they were probably up to no good in the first place. I really can't see it affecting any of my Browsing and internut habits other than in a mostly positive way.
WWJB ? :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11
I just realised my art portfolio could be banned because it's hosted at DA DeviantArt.
Could be false positive under filters
Or correctly filtered based on the subjectively/complaint based "unwanted" list, depending on how hand in hand various big business Art House types are with the prevailing Government and how strong the desire of both are in relation to stamping out independants and rogues.
Just like with the news media, music industry, and film distributors etc.
Tis plain to see what sort of things are going to end up in the "unwanted" basket – and who will be making the efforts to have them put in that basket ... and I reckon that the likes of FF are the LEAST of your concerns in that regard.
As for being filtered, I had my first "google has hidden/removed one search result due to content reported as being illegal by complaint system" type message the other day.
Interestingly enough, I was searching the word "internut" (and discovered that folk have been using it for a long, long, LONG time) but I've just gone back to search for it again so I could get the exact text to quote in here of the message google presented at the bottom of the results list, and it no longer appears for that particular search.
Anyone else ever got that kind of message and can still duplicate it so we can all take a look at what it looks like ?
Anyway, I suspect a similar sort of messaging system will be used when ILCF is brought in.
regarDS
Could be false positive under filters
Or correctly filtered based on the subjectively/complaint based "unwanted" list, depending on how hand in hand various big business Art House types are with the prevailing Government and how strong the desire of both are in relation to stamping out independants and rogues.
Just like with the news media, music industry, and film distributors etc.
Tis plain to see what sort of things are going to end up in the "unwanted" basket – and who will be making the efforts to have them put in that basket ... and I reckon that the likes of FF are the LEAST of your concerns in that regard.
As for being filtered, I had my first "google has hidden/removed one search result due to content reported as being illegal by complaint system" type message the other day.
Interestingly enough, I was searching the word "internut" (and discovered that folk have been using it for a long, long, LONG time) but I've just gone back to search for it again so I could get the exact text to quote in here of the message google presented at the bottom of the results list, and it no longer appears for that particular search.
Anyone else ever got that kind of message and can still duplicate it so we can all take a look at what it looks like ?
Anyway, I suspect a similar sort of messaging system will be used when ILCF is brought in.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt11
It's going to stop the ATO from collecting funds and/or add immense costs to everyone meeting ATO obligations.
I doubt it. The current ATO portal/certificate system for BAS and PAYG etc if not merely "whitelisted" is destined to be taken to a new level down the track as per usual "keeping up with technology", anyway.
If anything, the client/ATO relationship is probably easier and better (and now a long way from the "us and them" of old – tis just like doing online banking these days) than it has ever been thanks to the portal system, and I for one can only see it getting even better regardless of ILCF.
(Some) banks already offer business clients VPN/securid token access ... maybe this is the path the ATO may take in the long run as well. Dunno, don't care, I just reckon that the ATO will remain on their current path of making it as easy and cost effective as possible for Oz income earners to pay their taxes.
Still, feel free to count "the ATO won't be able to easily collect taxes" as one of the arguments against ILCF ... :)
regarDS
I doubt it. The current ATO portal/certificate system for BAS and PAYG etc if not merely "whitelisted" is destined to be taken to a new level down the track as per usual "keeping up with technology", anyway.
If anything, the client/ATO relationship is probably easier and better (and now a long way from the "us and them" of old – tis just like doing online banking these days) than it has ever been thanks to the portal system, and I for one can only see it getting even better regardless of ILCF.
(Some) banks already offer business clients VPN/securid token access ... maybe this is the path the ATO may take in the long run as well. Dunno, don't care, I just reckon that the ATO will remain on their current path of making it as easy and cost effective as possible for Oz income earners to pay their taxes.
Still, feel free to count "the ATO won't be able to easily collect taxes" as one of the arguments against ILCF ... :)
regarDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
