Fair enough too.

Given that they won't be trawling the streets looking for people 'to do this to' I can't see the problem.

If you are colour blind it reduces your ability to do quite a few things and has few advantages.

Further, regarding some posters comments about 'curing' autism, I'd be interested to know how someone would be given the option of having the general competencies that most people have as against serious limitations.

Most people who have self-awareness and experience serious levels of intellectual disability are painfully aware of their personal limitations. Few would want to keep them given a choice Yes, I have worked in the field. Yes, I have relatives and friends who have impairments. Yes, I know some deaf people consider they have a culture worth keeping. No, regarding the latter, I don't think they've got an advantage that out-weighs the disadvantage. Check out the interviews of people who have gone deaf after being a hearing person. These people really know the difference.

You idiot! Now you've gone a blown it.

When their brains explode all over the country trying get their minds around that one *you* will be responsible for picking up the pieces.

I remember some Ambos and Firebrigade officers once telling me about their 'Sussan bags'

"this goes with this, goes with this, goes with this, this goes with that at Susssan's"

http://www.madisonmag.com.au/fashion/aussie-heroes.htm

(Australian joke)

You might need your own Susanne bag for all the bit's you're gonna have to pick up ;)

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080391/

I can see any intelligent Martian life running for the hills :)

I wonder if they scared the crap out of anyone in Greenland

LOL

Yup.

Oh, I suppose I should say more :)

The issue of a mandate is a very relevant one.

I'm all for ISPs filtering the 'net...if I ask them to. You should be able to ask your provider to add a particular type of filtering to your service and thus be free to roam unhindered by the outside world and alternate views and opinions (no, I'm not talking about the alternate views supporting child porn etc, don't be stupid).

If you really want this, you should be able to have a 'no fuss' service provided.

Personally I believe that current legislation needs updating and improving and more money given to the Fed Police to track down child abusers, their groups, 'net friends etc.

I don't believe the Fed Govt should filter the whole damn Internet as it arrives in Australia. This really is extreme and ineffectual, doing nothing to prevent the problems they claim it will address.

Added to this, if a psychologist/sociologist wished to do research on 'offensive sexual practices' (or whatever the 'other' category is which doesn't include abuse of children or others) and was interested in what was currently happening within a given community, this filter will prevent them (I'm not talking about academic material available within a library). It would also prevent drug harm minimisation experts accessing community material because this too will be filtered.

Yes, I have kids. Yes, they have puters. No, I don't watch them all the time. Yes, I can work out what they're doing. Yes, I can install filters it at home. No, I don't want to. ...but if I were Fred Nile(1) and his fellow travellers, it would be the best thing possible...he won't see ANYTHING! LOL

(1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Nile

"The big thing for me about a netbook is long battery life (> 6 hours) and light weight ( 1.5g). "

1.5 grams?

Holy Crap...can you post your netbook to me please?

I'll even send you the postage!

They're relying on us 'taking the risk' (not that I believe there is one) with our children so that their children will be protected. I agree. It frustrates me too. On the other hand: What about banning children who aren't vaccinated from public places? That way we can avoid them becoming ill or transmitting something for which they're a carrier but naturally immune? Hmmmmmmmmm...that would have to include their parents. LOL

One of the big problems with poor written English is reading it and understanding it. Try this: Ask students to write a paper on a particular subject Read and then grade the 50 papers Read and regrade those 50 papers Do that with five classes of 50 students and then have another go at discussing whether good written English is helpful to the student. I think you'll find that when you've read one paper for an hour (and it should have taken you no longer than 30 minutes) and you are still none the wiser as to what they are telling you, you'll soon realise why it is that good written English helps all parties to understand each other.

I wish people would pick something other than murder to compare file sharing with. It's NOT murder and the analogy fails badly because of it. Nor is it like illicit drug use, child pornography or any other serious crime (which drug use and trafficking isn't - they're just offences against some people's morals). Try an analogy like shop lifting or littering. Then see whether the argument makes sense. The evidence that this activity remove money from the pockets of the companies involved is far from clear. The fact that a great many people engage in the activity should indicate that a great many people believe it's not as bad as murder, kiddie porn trafficking or any other such activity.