In Australia, if you get charged with DUI, the police have to have evidence. This can be in the form of a breathalyser reading or blood test but not in the form of "I smelled beer on his breath".

Once you're charged you have two options, the first is to contest it and take it to court. The second is to pay the fine which is considered an admission of guilt. Because the requirement for evidence for Australian Police is high, most opt not to go to court. High range DUI (over 0.08 BAC) has an automatic court appearance, most just plead guilty.

Even though we have random breath tests, you still go through the same legal system with the same chances to demonstrate your innocence. Convictions are not automatic.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Abuse this privilege and it will be taken away from you.

If you dont like RBT's you have the choice not to drive. A lot of Australians like RBT's because it cuts down on drunk drivers. Whilst we're on that subject, you have no right to drink and drive.

The taxman can deliver an assessment that says you owe $xxxxx in taxes and you are presumed to be guilty unless you can prove you don't owe that much in tax.

That assessment is court admissible evidence that you do owe $xxxx in taxes. You have been demonstrated to be in arrears. The tax tables are published before the FY starts and the government it not permitted to change the tax tables once the FY begins. So you have no excuse for not knowing how much you owe. Of course as part of our legal system you get the opportunity to demonstrate those figures are wrong. This means you get the presumption of innocence as you get to challenge the assessment. The fact is most people choose not to because the assessment is accurate. You have no idea what presumption of innocence means.

What does Peter Garrett do? You strike me as one of those Freemen On The Land nutters. For the Americans playing along at home FOTL's are the equivalent of Tea Partiers, Libertarians and Rednecks all rolled into one completely retarded package.

Also we can record our cops.

For every traffic stop, my dash cam records audio. Plus because they use things like breathalisers, I cant be pulled out of my car because the officer "smelled beer on my breath", there is a standard of evidence to be upheld.

Not that I've ever had trouble with the cops. I get pulled over into an RBT (Random Breath Test) site about once a year and pull out a minute or two later with a "thanks for your co-operation sir". This is in my boy-racer Nissan Silvia S15 with fart canon exhaust, it really pays not to be a self-important wanker when dealing with cops.

That's completely useless in this case as the malware fools the user into installing it. The user downloads a zip file containing an executable, so its well outside the sandbox by that point.

Cloud city
 
/grabs blaster rifle

Now get off my moisture farm, damn kids.

Your experience is very US-centric.

If you lived in Australia you'd find it hard to find anyone who spoke Spanish.

Chinese doesn't even have a word for "no", to give you an idea of how fundamentally different it is.

This is common amongst Asian languages or at least Asian cultures.

When communicating with contractors and businesses in many Asian nations it's often an exercise to figure out if "yes" means "yes we can" or "yes we cant"

I as well as millions of other sysadmins would very much like this feature in Windows.

That way we can immediately patch some machines and test for problems and then have the others patch 1-2 weeks later. 99% of the time it will be fine, but that 1% will save a weeks worth of downtime.

WSUS doesn't really cut it in this regard and requires too much manual work for a sysadmin that already doesn't have enough time.

And where are all the other Breiviks? Can't you find any other? At least one per week, please.

Moving the goal posts means you've lost the argument.

You said it yourself, this guy trippled Norways yearly homicide rate in 3 days. How many of the Muslim incidents you allude to occur in war zones or countries that have an open revolution? Most of them. It's like saying all Christian nations are unsafe by Colombia as an example. The difference between us is that I can recognise BS and you cant.

Norway is an extremely safe country and a rational one. The way Norway picked up and carried on After Breivik is a shining example to us all. No fear mongering or revenge wars.

But where are the extremist Islamic attacks in Norway... at least one per week please.

I'd argue that one religion specifically actually makes me unsafe

And this makes you a xenophobe.

Which was the point of my argument, you aren't interested in the truth, you're interested in things that agree with you.

Now here's the kicker, I'm an Australian, I live in Australia and I know a hell of a lot more about this than you do considering how biased and inaccurate your sources are.

This guy is simply not right in the head. It's not that he's a Muslim that caused this, its the fact he's mentally ill. He's already lost 5 of his hostages (they escaped out the back door) he's that incompetent. This is more an indication of Australia's failing mental health care than the rise of Islamic extremism.

At this point in history, arguing that perhaps religion doesn't make people utterly stupid really sounds almost like arguing that perhaps the Earth is hollow.

But that isn't your argument.

Your argument is that Islam is inherently violent (which is what the site you linked to is trying to say). Dont try to change the argument to all religions because you've been proven wrong (you want a list of attacks, the IRA did over 10,000 bombings on its own).

Extremism is bad and causes people to do irrational things. Your brand of extremism is as bad as any other.

Actually it's not.

This just demonstrates you didn't understand the argument.

You're the one arguing about religion, more specifically that one religion makes you unsafe.

I never said Norway was unsafe, I said Breivik was religiously motivated (he wrote a manifesto about it, his notion that the Christian church was being usurped was a big part of it).

Australia's gun laws are what has prevented this person from having an assault rifle. He's armed with a small single barrelled shotgun. Having more armed people will ensure that more incidents like this will occur and a lot more often.

And I am an Australian. Our gun laws have prevented things like this as criminals cant get easy access to guns.

We are not terrorised here I can assure you.

It doesn't even have the chance to get to that body count. The guy is armed with a shotgun, so thats two shots at best.

+1 sad indictment.

Pointless too - all he can do is humiliate Abbott in front of the world which Abbott has been doing himself when he gets out of reach of his handlers

Abbott's handlers would never let him.

Tony Abbott's statement on this couldn't have been more generic if it were written in beige.

But as soon as this is over, you can bet the poo is going to be flung in all directions in parliament and the media.