As for the 'unwanted' part, 'unwanted' by who? You? Conroy? His mum?
The general population of Oz, But Of Course. Sure, not everyone need agree, but since when is there ever 100% agreement even around the xmas dinner table, let alone the entire nation. So we maturely and sensibly go for consensus, "near enough", and compromise.
amazed this concept does not horrify you.
Why should it horrify me ? We are only talking about the internut here – it isn't like I'm being oppressed or stifled in any way, anyway.
Its probably because you trust them, which is extremely naive.
I don't really trust any typical human individual entrusted with power over others, but I do have a reasoned/reasonable faith in the systems we have created in Oz to ensure no few individuals get power without accountability.
We have a system and we elect people in and out of that system by the system.
So what is the problem here ? Seems strange to suddenly stop trusting the system the moment it has something dear to you in its necessary sights ...
regarDS
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
[deleted] writes...And what does a "data centre" actually do
Converts electricity into heat, mostly :-)
Heh. Nice one centurion.
They also serve to feed the paranoid their daily conspiracy.
regarDS
Converts electricity into heat, mostly :-)
Heh. Nice one centurion.
They also serve to feed the paranoid their daily conspiracy.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
I am acting in the interest that there are no mechanisms in place to stop further Governments and various groups, family or religious for that matter, adding to the filter all things that are deemed inappropriate and unwanted by their standards.
Uh, that would be "our standards", not "their standards". Our elected government consists of fellow citizens of Oz; we are all in this together. Our elected government represents the general business and community and society interests of our country and when it fails to sufficiently do so, it is replaced by a new government consisting yet again of fellow citizens of Oz, but this time hopefully more inline with what the majority/consensus of our population what for our country and future.
As my blog shows (down to a complete list of order of my federal election preferences), I didn't vote in the government we currently have, and I'll no doubt be casting my vote against them next time around as well. However, I recognise that the voters of Oz put them into power this time around (and placed me into a minority) so I'll support this government in what I personally feel it is getting right, and whinge and moan about what I personally feel it is getting wrong – just like I do with any Oz government.
Generally, we elect our governments so we can prosper as a people, nation, and society; we put our trust in them (with the right checks and balances) to have a vision for our future and methods to get us there – methods that might even seem unpopular or inconvenient in the short term.
Without a vision though, we perish. I reckon that we can only remain a nation of the "fair go" while most of us are in support of doing the right thing. The "fair go" has been put under threat by too many trying for the "free ride", so now is the time to re-educate by all means possible as fast as possible before "fair go" becomes not much more than a memory.
TANSTAAFL, and it is time to pay what is fairly due or be deemed something less than flattering.
regarDS
Uh, that would be "our standards", not "their standards". Our elected government consists of fellow citizens of Oz; we are all in this together. Our elected government represents the general business and community and society interests of our country and when it fails to sufficiently do so, it is replaced by a new government consisting yet again of fellow citizens of Oz, but this time hopefully more inline with what the majority/consensus of our population what for our country and future.
As my blog shows (down to a complete list of order of my federal election preferences), I didn't vote in the government we currently have, and I'll no doubt be casting my vote against them next time around as well. However, I recognise that the voters of Oz put them into power this time around (and placed me into a minority) so I'll support this government in what I personally feel it is getting right, and whinge and moan about what I personally feel it is getting wrong – just like I do with any Oz government.
Generally, we elect our governments so we can prosper as a people, nation, and society; we put our trust in them (with the right checks and balances) to have a vision for our future and methods to get us there – methods that might even seem unpopular or inconvenient in the short term.
Without a vision though, we perish. I reckon that we can only remain a nation of the "fair go" while most of us are in support of doing the right thing. The "fair go" has been put under threat by too many trying for the "free ride", so now is the time to re-educate by all means possible as fast as possible before "fair go" becomes not much more than a memory.
TANSTAAFL, and it is time to pay what is fairly due or be deemed something less than flattering.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
derspatz writes...How can you be sure (or even prove) that you haven't been "blinded by personal ideology and devoid of practical rational thinking" ?
Because I (and the others here) are basing *all* of our arguments upon the facts, and logic, whereas you, bernadette and conroy are resorting to scare tactics, lies, speculation and hyperbole
But you would say that, wouldn't you.
I've not seen much in the way of "facts and logic" as you've just claimed, but rather something consistently more comparable to addicts trying/using every line/excuse/justification under the sun to maintain a link/feed for their own selfish and questionable habits.
The reality is that our government is NOT out to "get you"; it is just out to make Oz a better place for everyone, especially our future as is supposed to be delivered by our children, as generally desired by no doubt the majority of our population ... especially the women of Oz (whom we would all be wise to support.)
Most of us are not going to be adversely affected one whit by ILCF. In fact, I dare say that in large (as in "some/most but not all"), anyone who IS adversely affected probably deserves to be and also probably isn't worthy of consideration.
I do believe that ILCF will only be the beginning, and the beginning of a good thing at that (and one that stands to make ISPs a lot of money when they truly realise the potential and get onboard), especially when the untold millions who have been busy parasiting instead of paying are at last forced to either cough up or log off.
Complaining about alleged threats to "freedom of speech and expression" when one is really more worried about being cut off from freeby downloads and/or questionable material, is hardly going to see one taken all that seriously. Yet what do we have in this forum ? Thousands of messages about how free unclean feeds are going to suffer and how one might get around the blockage and maintain free links to the pollutants and stolen © material, etc.
Yeah, SURE the authors of those kinds of messages are worried about their so called "freedom of speech". (rolls eyes again)
regarDS
Because I (and the others here) are basing *all* of our arguments upon the facts, and logic, whereas you, bernadette and conroy are resorting to scare tactics, lies, speculation and hyperbole
But you would say that, wouldn't you.
I've not seen much in the way of "facts and logic" as you've just claimed, but rather something consistently more comparable to addicts trying/using every line/excuse/justification under the sun to maintain a link/feed for their own selfish and questionable habits.
The reality is that our government is NOT out to "get you"; it is just out to make Oz a better place for everyone, especially our future as is supposed to be delivered by our children, as generally desired by no doubt the majority of our population ... especially the women of Oz (whom we would all be wise to support.)
Most of us are not going to be adversely affected one whit by ILCF. In fact, I dare say that in large (as in "some/most but not all"), anyone who IS adversely affected probably deserves to be and also probably isn't worthy of consideration.
I do believe that ILCF will only be the beginning, and the beginning of a good thing at that (and one that stands to make ISPs a lot of money when they truly realise the potential and get onboard), especially when the untold millions who have been busy parasiting instead of paying are at last forced to either cough up or log off.
Complaining about alleged threats to "freedom of speech and expression" when one is really more worried about being cut off from freeby downloads and/or questionable material, is hardly going to see one taken all that seriously. Yet what do we have in this forum ? Thousands of messages about how free unclean feeds are going to suffer and how one might get around the blockage and maintain free links to the pollutants and stolen © material, etc.
Yeah, SURE the authors of those kinds of messages are worried about their so called "freedom of speech". (rolls eyes again)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
I have never come across child porn in a decade of net use
I thought filtering out CP was just part of the proposed design ... ie, you've forgetting "unwanted" material.
There isn't one of us here who has never come across "unwanted material" in a decade of net use.
Obviously, what I deem to be "unwanted material" is going to differ somewhat to your idea.
So. May the majority/consensus win out on that one ...
regarDS
I thought filtering out CP was just part of the proposed design ... ie, you've forgetting "unwanted" material.
There isn't one of us here who has never come across "unwanted material" in a decade of net use.
Obviously, what I deem to be "unwanted material" is going to differ somewhat to your idea.
So. May the majority/consensus win out on that one ...
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
[deleted] writes...I still don't understand how in a democracy one very vocal minority can make decisions that effect everyone around them. Just boggles the mind.
Yes its Bloody Scary isnt it??
What ? You're both kidding, right ?
ILCF is small potatoes compared to the kinds of changes and effects inflicted and wrought upon Oz society by all sorts of vocal minorities ... and unlike ILCF, rarely for the better at that.
In fact, ILCF would be part of pushing back the other way re: some of those "vocal minorities".
regarDS
Yes its Bloody Scary isnt it??
What ? You're both kidding, right ?
ILCF is small potatoes compared to the kinds of changes and effects inflicted and wrought upon Oz society by all sorts of vocal minorities ... and unlike ILCF, rarely for the better at that.
In fact, ILCF would be part of pushing back the other way re: some of those "vocal minorities".
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
Childwise also want to record/log ALL traffic passing through an ISP level censorship system so that it can be scrutinized and, if required, actioned upon at a later date.
Sounds prudent and worth supporting. Referable archives can serve to vindicate just as well as they can to condemn.
regarDS
Sounds prudent and worth supporting. Referable archives can serve to vindicate just as well as they can to condemn.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
What about your self-interest?
That a reference to my blog ?
Keep your beliefs and values private!
You first.
regarDS
That a reference to my blog ?
Keep your beliefs and values private!
You first.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
Question for you: The Government could have tried all manner of things to protect children. Why, out of all of those things, is this one the one that's worth supporting?
Pure straw Mark, and you know it. This is not "The One" ... it is but one of a constantly necessary continuing and evolving many. The Anti-ILCF crowd just want to make it "the one", because of the unhealthy, unrealistic, and blinkered view they have of their sacred cow; the internut.
I doubt if anyone in here is really worried about losing a voice (regardless of what they might choose to vocalise). At most I reckon it is all merely the worry that they may be personally cut off or inconvenienced in access to their chosen anti-social poisons and/or forced to actually start paying for what they consume for a change.
In short, I reckon near everyone who is presenting themselves as being anti-ILCF is basically acting out of self-interest.
why aren't you dissing this proposal and advocating for something better? (oh, I know, "ILCF2.0." ...
I continue to try to redirect and push against the stream for the same reasons (and self interests) as I continue to cut my nails and hair.
ie, as the need arises according to personal tolerances.
... Pre-emptively: "Get a freakin' grip, David.")
And to those who have made the internut their sacred cow and dogmatically (and with all the conviction of a standard Fanatical Religious Zealot) seek to preserve its current incarnation no matter what the cost or reason, I ButOfCourse retort "Get a life ..."
Yet I'm deemed to be the Bad Guy because I happen to think it would be a great idea to drink from a clean stream and have peace on earth with goodwill shared/given by all. (rolls eyes)
A tolerance of "anything goes" is never going to deliver either.
regarDS
Pure straw Mark, and you know it. This is not "The One" ... it is but one of a constantly necessary continuing and evolving many. The Anti-ILCF crowd just want to make it "the one", because of the unhealthy, unrealistic, and blinkered view they have of their sacred cow; the internut.
I doubt if anyone in here is really worried about losing a voice (regardless of what they might choose to vocalise). At most I reckon it is all merely the worry that they may be personally cut off or inconvenienced in access to their chosen anti-social poisons and/or forced to actually start paying for what they consume for a change.
In short, I reckon near everyone who is presenting themselves as being anti-ILCF is basically acting out of self-interest.
why aren't you dissing this proposal and advocating for something better? (oh, I know, "ILCF2.0." ...
I continue to try to redirect and push against the stream for the same reasons (and self interests) as I continue to cut my nails and hair.
ie, as the need arises according to personal tolerances.
... Pre-emptively: "Get a freakin' grip, David.")
And to those who have made the internut their sacred cow and dogmatically (and with all the conviction of a standard Fanatical Religious Zealot) seek to preserve its current incarnation no matter what the cost or reason, I ButOfCourse retort "Get a life ..."
Yet I'm deemed to be the Bad Guy because I happen to think it would be a great idea to drink from a clean stream and have peace on earth with goodwill shared/given by all. (rolls eyes)
A tolerance of "anything goes" is never going to deliver either.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
What a dumb uneducated mole. Totally blinded by personal ideology and devoid of practical rational thinking. Totally the worst type of person to be running this or any agenda, but totally expected. People like her make my blood boil.
LOL. Cheers for the giggle. Obviously examples of Pots calling Kettles Black are good for my blood circulation. The truth is that if this concerned lady happened to share your view you would be singing her praises and updating the wiki.
How can you be sure (or even prove) that you haven't been "blinded by personal ideology and devoid of practical rational thinking" ?
When it comes down to "individual wants" vs "community needs", shouldn't the latter generally be favoured regardless of all manner of conflicting "practical rational thinking" and logic streams used to define and justify both positions ?
Especially when the welfare of our future, ie, The Children, is the ruling issue.
In short, shouldn't the welfare of the children in your community be deemed far more important than your individualistic wants ?
regarDS
LOL. Cheers for the giggle. Obviously examples of Pots calling Kettles Black are good for my blood circulation. The truth is that if this concerned lady happened to share your view you would be singing her praises and updating the wiki.
How can you be sure (or even prove) that you haven't been "blinded by personal ideology and devoid of practical rational thinking" ?
When it comes down to "individual wants" vs "community needs", shouldn't the latter generally be favoured regardless of all manner of conflicting "practical rational thinking" and logic streams used to define and justify both positions ?
Especially when the welfare of our future, ie, The Children, is the ruling issue.
In short, shouldn't the welfare of the children in your community be deemed far more important than your individualistic wants ?
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
I'm pretty sure my wife would prefer me to "lust" after a picture of a woman who lives on the other side of the planet, rather than the woman next door.
Surely she would prefer you to be lusting after her alone ... and I don't see much point in pretending/lying about being with someone when one's heart is obviously elsewhere.
"What the eye can't see, the heart can't grieve".
I believe that might be from one of the TV adverts for ILCF. :)
regarDS
Surely she would prefer you to be lusting after her alone ... and I don't see much point in pretending/lying about being with someone when one's heart is obviously elsewhere.
"What the eye can't see, the heart can't grieve".
I believe that might be from one of the TV adverts for ILCF. :)
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
_More than_ 99% of any ACMA blacklist is not going to be illegal – everyone here knows that!
The general public doesn't know that – and desperately needs to find out.
Once again, many if not most of the so called "general public" aren't really going to care at all just as long as they can still get the TV guide, lotto results, footy scores, do some ebay and banking, and get a local weather report.
Add to that all the women who would pragmatically be glad for nearly any reason at all for their husbands, partners, kids, etc to be spending less time plugged in and more time "as a family" or doing things with them and before long all you are really left with are all the usual suspects that add up to a minority not really worth worrying that much about.
Your sacred cow is not theirs nor mine and nor is it ever likely to be, so I think the "desperately needs to find out" angle is quite inaccurate, for "they" are probably not in the slightest bit interested in even respecting (let alone protecting) your sacred cow.
You know how prolly most of us in here have no time for the many kinds of door-knockers who come around and bang on our doors to try and get us to join up with their version of Reality ?
Why should the anti-ILCF zealots be treated any differently ?
regarDS
The general public doesn't know that – and desperately needs to find out.
Once again, many if not most of the so called "general public" aren't really going to care at all just as long as they can still get the TV guide, lotto results, footy scores, do some ebay and banking, and get a local weather report.
Add to that all the women who would pragmatically be glad for nearly any reason at all for their husbands, partners, kids, etc to be spending less time plugged in and more time "as a family" or doing things with them and before long all you are really left with are all the usual suspects that add up to a minority not really worth worrying that much about.
Your sacred cow is not theirs nor mine and nor is it ever likely to be, so I think the "desperately needs to find out" angle is quite inaccurate, for "they" are probably not in the slightest bit interested in even respecting (let alone protecting) your sacred cow.
You know how prolly most of us in here have no time for the many kinds of door-knockers who come around and bang on our doors to try and get us to join up with their version of Reality ?
Why should the anti-ILCF zealots be treated any differently ?
regarDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
