[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
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
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
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13
I agree with Jary and a number of others posting in here that "the religion" angle being repeatedly tossed into the mix by a particular few, is at most only tenuously linked with the subject of ILCF being discussed here.
I reckon a stronger argument could be given for women, mothers, grannies, wives, girlfriends being more likely to be in support of ILCF and a whole lot more besides if it meant that their partners, husbands, boyfriends, children would have less reason to spend so much time glued to a computer monitor and instead being giving them (The Women) more attention or doing "together" and "family" type things – or just getting outside and building a tree-house or something.
I suspect that virtually ALL guys in here with wives or girlfriends know darn well that more often than not their partner wishes they were not "online" so much. I bet many of those wives and girlfriends would be a whole lot happier if a whole bunch of "unwanted" information was less likely to be viewable by their partners too.
I reckon most Oz women not only wouldn't give a hair-flick about "internet censorship" in terms of Computer Nerdy Geek types saying "it's a bad thing", but also would probably be in somewhat support of it when it comes to their loved ones and love interests.
Sure, religiously (and predictably) draw your long bows against "Religion" if that is what makes you happy, but realistically, I reckon your wives, mums, girlfriends, and daughters are more likely to be in favour of Net Censorship regardless of which kind of faith they belong to.
Especially when it comes to pr0n.
regarDS
I reckon a stronger argument could be given for women, mothers, grannies, wives, girlfriends being more likely to be in support of ILCF and a whole lot more besides if it meant that their partners, husbands, boyfriends, children would have less reason to spend so much time glued to a computer monitor and instead being giving them (The Women) more attention or doing "together" and "family" type things – or just getting outside and building a tree-house or something.
I suspect that virtually ALL guys in here with wives or girlfriends know darn well that more often than not their partner wishes they were not "online" so much. I bet many of those wives and girlfriends would be a whole lot happier if a whole bunch of "unwanted" information was less likely to be viewable by their partners too.
I reckon most Oz women not only wouldn't give a hair-flick about "internet censorship" in terms of Computer Nerdy Geek types saying "it's a bad thing", but also would probably be in somewhat support of it when it comes to their loved ones and love interests.
Sure, religiously (and predictably) draw your long bows against "Religion" if that is what makes you happy, but realistically, I reckon your wives, mums, girlfriends, and daughters are more likely to be in favour of Net Censorship regardless of which kind of faith they belong to.
Especially when it comes to pr0n.
regarDS
Saturday, November 22, 2008
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12
Published a couple of hours ago on the APCMAG site. Way too much data to cross-post into here, so here is the link and intro.
[quote]
http://apcmag.com/why_iinet_will_probably_lose_the_piracy_lawsuit.htm
Why iiNet will probably lose the piracy lawsuit
Dan Warne22 November 2008, 12:41 AM
A look at the Copyright Act suggests the movie
and TV industry have an unfortunately strong case
against iiNet. PLUS: Read the court documents yourself.
[/quote]
and
[quote]
the Copyright Act makes clear that an infringement doesn’t need to be proven first in order for an ISP to be liable for allowing it to happen. The group of movie studios suing iiNet are represented by the same lawyer (Michael Williams of Gilbert+Tobin) who sued Kazaa and won, and also successfully sued Stephen Cooper and his ISP E-Talk Communications for the MP3s4free.net website.
In those lawsuits, the industry didn't have to prove the copyright infringements were taking place before it sued the providers — the court accepted evidence during the cases of the infringements.
Unfortunately for iiNet, the law is angled in favour of copyright holders, not ISPs.
[/quote]
Which ever way you want to look at it, with ILCF being brought into play from our elected government side of things, and Big Business bringing legal pressures to bear from their copyright infringements and profit-loss side of things, it certainly doesn't look like a very good time to be a traditional sort of ISP at the moment.
Seems to me that ISPs interested in maintaining profits and avoiding fines etc, are going to have to learn to jump through a whole new bunch of hoops in the near future.
regarDS
[quote]
http://apcmag.com/why_iinet_will_probably_lose_the_piracy_lawsuit.htm
Why iiNet will probably lose the piracy lawsuit
Dan Warne22 November 2008, 12:41 AM
A look at the Copyright Act suggests the movie
and TV industry have an unfortunately strong case
against iiNet. PLUS: Read the court documents yourself.
[/quote]
and
[quote]
the Copyright Act makes clear that an infringement doesn’t need to be proven first in order for an ISP to be liable for allowing it to happen. The group of movie studios suing iiNet are represented by the same lawyer (Michael Williams of Gilbert+Tobin) who sued Kazaa and won, and also successfully sued Stephen Cooper and his ISP E-Talk Communications for the MP3s4free.net website.
In those lawsuits, the industry didn't have to prove the copyright infringements were taking place before it sued the providers — the court accepted evidence during the cases of the infringements.
Unfortunately for iiNet, the law is angled in favour of copyright holders, not ISPs.
[/quote]
Which ever way you want to look at it, with ILCF being brought into play from our elected government side of things, and Big Business bringing legal pressures to bear from their copyright infringements and profit-loss side of things, it certainly doesn't look like a very good time to be a traditional sort of ISP at the moment.
Seems to me that ISPs interested in maintaining profits and avoiding fines etc, are going to have to learn to jump through a whole new bunch of hoops in the near future.
regarDS
Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt12
When are we going to start holding Energex responsible for providing the electricity which makes this all possible?
Electricity production is a State affair isn't it ... and how much of it is foriegn owned at that ?
Better idea is to hit the actual telcos for what they mule ... but not before telstra has been totally sold off.
OTOH, here is another idea I shared on another forum re: another method of ILCF that could be done if Whirlpool is correct in what they say here:
From: http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=WP_Censorship
[QUOTE]
Censorship & Freedom of Speech
Under Australian law, the only protected form of speech is that of a political nature, and even then, it's only protected from governmental interference. Private entities can not, by definition, be guilty of censorship. Whirlpool is a private web site – owned and operated by an individual.
In short, you have no "freedom of speech" on Whirlpool, nor is the cry of "censorship" at all valid.
In the interest of fairness and balance, as well as to help focus and improve quality of discussion, there is a team of moderators who have the ability to remove posts and threads from the public eye. There are many legitimate reasons for a moderator to remove comments, which are outlined elsewhere in the Forum Rules.
[/QUOTE]
My idea for better ILCF based on the above ?
"So, a simple solution for The Government of Oz re: controlling the internut would be to buy back Telstra and out-compete/banish all foreign intrusions into Oz communications by making access to the Public Owned Telstra communication system free for all domestic telephone and net access.
Then, after the public are well and truly addicted to the freeness of it all, blat/block to hearts content anything muled about on the infrastructure and delivered via url, etc, and not have to worry the slightest about any "waa, waa, waa"ing from the public plugged into the free communications, because after all, if it ain't political speech it has no protection anyway."
regarDS
Electricity production is a State affair isn't it ... and how much of it is foriegn owned at that ?
Better idea is to hit the actual telcos for what they mule ... but not before telstra has been totally sold off.
OTOH, here is another idea I shared on another forum re: another method of ILCF that could be done if Whirlpool is correct in what they say here:
From: http://whirlpool.net.au/wiki/?tag=WP_Censorship
[QUOTE]
Censorship & Freedom of Speech
Under Australian law, the only protected form of speech is that of a political nature, and even then, it's only protected from governmental interference. Private entities can not, by definition, be guilty of censorship. Whirlpool is a private web site – owned and operated by an individual.
In short, you have no "freedom of speech" on Whirlpool, nor is the cry of "censorship" at all valid.
In the interest of fairness and balance, as well as to help focus and improve quality of discussion, there is a team of moderators who have the ability to remove posts and threads from the public eye. There are many legitimate reasons for a moderator to remove comments, which are outlined elsewhere in the Forum Rules.
[/QUOTE]
My idea for better ILCF based on the above ?
"So, a simple solution for The Government of Oz re: controlling the internut would be to buy back Telstra and out-compete/banish all foreign intrusions into Oz communications by making access to the Public Owned Telstra communication system free for all domestic telephone and net access.
Then, after the public are well and truly addicted to the freeness of it all, blat/block to hearts content anything muled about on the infrastructure and delivered via url, etc, and not have to worry the slightest about any "waa, waa, waa"ing from the public plugged into the free communications, because after all, if it ain't political speech it has no protection anyway."
regarDS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
