Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

Too much monies to be made with the "ILCF Buster 2008™", it's the capitalist way! :)

I know it is too soon to be doing the actual coding on this one sheepboy, but any chance we can get a peak at a rough draft of some of the documentation that will accompany it ?

How about a config file layout ? :)

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

The Morally Vetted Internet Experience that tools like you 'approve' of for the rest of the plebeans, less able to discern the moral high ground? ...

(etc, etc, etc)

Wanna lighten up on the ad-hominem, thanks ? You really don't have to be taking alternative opinions to yours on ILCF so personally and it does none of us any favours to try and take your own obvious dissatisfaction re: the ILCF trials, out on me.

I've stayed out of the thread dedicated specifically to the support of preventing ILCF, for I have no right to be there because of my contrary view point, but I would thank you to lay off with the abuse and lazy appeals to "trolling" directed my way, for I have just as much right to my opinion and presense in this particular thread as you do, regardless of how much we may disagree with each other's chosen stance. Cheers.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

Do you understand the concept that the banned list will not be available to the public? How is there going to be any sort of accountability?

Why should Joe Shmo be privy to such controlled material ?

Isn't it the job of a created/delegated/accountable department to do the accounting ? Wouldn't suitable avenues be created to allow a degree of controlled public access as required – ie, via court orders/requests in relation to criminal proceedings or lawsuits and the like ?

I'm no more interested in knowing the contents of any banned list than I am of knowing where the Oz navy was last week or much else of what our elected government may have put under seal (or whatever) for our country's own good.

We cast out vote and trust the system we have created for ourselves, and when we cannot, we pressure for improvement.

Which, as it relates to ILCF, gets back to numbers again.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

I do have to question derspatz's bona fides – mate – why do you hide? Notice all of us here have our whims turned on. Except you.

Already explained at my blog (which doesn't have comments turned on either – nor do I log/track/sitemeter visitors). I have neither the time nor interest in exchanging private messages here or on any other forum or blog and in fact I barely even use email or the telephone for anything other than taking care of business.

I am known to leave the odd comment or message on other folk's blogs and web pages on rare occasions, but even then I prefer that things said are deemed public domain.

I don't respond to "friend" invites on my "facile book" and "my spaz" accounts, either – I've already got all the friends I want and barely communicate with them in the offline world (let alone online one) anyway.

Private implies confidential and I'm not interested in keeping confidences or having people making inaccurate claims about me based on private exchanges, or leaving avenues open by which cowardly anonymous abuse and threats or stalking like behaviour can easily occur.

In over 20 years of online communications, I have never been the fan of (nor encouraged) recreational private communications where I could get away with it being public. That isn't about to change any time soon.

Suggesting that by only partaking in public conversations is somehow "hiding" has got me scratching my head though. Heck, my blog link is up there on the left and it links through to heaps of personal information (including my full real name), yet I only know the real names of two people in this forum (richary and -mark) and that is only because we go back near 20 years to a time of online communications that preceded the proliferation of the web.

Anyway, if you've got something to say to me, then say it so that the public record can remain proof of it, and I'll return the same decency. Cheers.

If you can't say it in the foum then it probably shouldn't be said, hmmm ?

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

I will continue to use the internet the do the 'wrong thing' because it will not and cannot stop me, nor many others.

If it does try to stop me from doing something I want to do, I will circumvent it within seconds.

It will fail to achieve its intended purpose, but rather merely limit our nation to internet speeds that other countries had many years ago.

I cannot see why you think this is a good idea.

So even with your circumventions in seconds, it is still going to slow you down ?

Not only that, but going to slow a lot of other people down too ?

One would think that if things got slow enough, lots of certain folk would give up on doing a whole bunch of stuff that they couldn't be bothered (or were unable) to wait around for.

Sound like a bit of a win to me. :)

The reality though is that the general population probably won't notice any kind of slow down that they are not already used to.

I do accept though that the slightest speed drop anywhere at anytime WILL be blamed on ILCF even though it will be the same old same old being actually responsible. IE, peak periods, holiday times, sporting events, blah, blah, blah, etc, etc, etc.

Sad to read that you're bent on doing "the wrong thing" in Oz mind you. That isn't very community minded or neighbourly, let alone something to be proud of. Please reconsider.

regarDS

Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt13

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

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

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

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

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