it wasn't a problem with the random number generator - it was a problem with where the number was used.
They "shuffled" by passing a user defined "compare" function which returned random results to a sort function.
For sort to work properly, the results must be repeatable - so basically rather than create a random sort, they just created a broken sort, and the result would then be dependant on the actual sorting algorithm used by the language.

so, "the law recognises no positive obligation on any person to protect the copyright of another" doesn't meet your definition of that?

The number of people who chose PHP because it has a superficial syntactic resemblance to C (actually it looks more like Perl than C) must be vanishingly small.
No one(*) develops in C any more, being C-like is no longer a benefit.

(*) Ok, I know that _some people_ do - I do myself, for a job even, but it's very rare to find new developers that know real C, compared with Java, C# or C++. And the number of people who profess some level of PHP proficiency dwarf all of them.

Both of those instances are not actually the introduction of anything new - they are simply cases of the law being applied as written.
I don't imagine the simpsons porn issue will change - afterall, which politician would want to soften an anti-child porn law?
But the video game issue is being actively challenged, and most of the country wants to change it, and it's just a matter of time until it is changed. The only reason it hasn't already been fixed is because of the bizarre rule that any changes to the classification system have to be agreed to by the Attorneys General of every state - and the S.A. Attorney General (the Michael Atkinson from this story, coincidentally) keeps digging in his heels and coming up with more and more ridiculous reasons why the change would be bad. However, he's unlikely to remain Attorney General after S.A's approaching election, so the problem will go away.

One thing to be careful of when judging the state of things in the other country, is that negative proposals or plans like this always generate headlines. The more important story, where the plan is cancelled, or defeated almost never does.
In this particular case, Atkinson has already ditched this plan, due to the massive public outcry - but you won't see a followup story saying that. So as a result someone that only reads headlines would have a very warped idea of the truth.

How old is the author of this article?
They seem to think that all of these things only finally got workable in the 90s, yet in many of the cases there was a perfectly working substitute in place in the 80s, 70s, or even earlier.

I find it very interesting that pointing out that Australia does not actually have filtered Internet results in the comment getting buried with 'Overrated' mods. How can a comment with no moderation be overrated? Particularly when it is debunking a myth.

Do Slashdot mods these days enjoy the aura of hysterical ignorance that has evolved here over time?

You mean the filter that actually _does not exist_ and will never exist?

My point still stands - it would have been very odd for Mrs Clinton to have labelled Australia as an Internet censoring nation for proposed legislation that has not been put before parliament, and is unlikely to pass if and when it gets there.

BTW, I happen to live in Canberra, so I know damned well that any current Internet filtering in Australia lives only in the minds of Slashdot readers that never read more than a headline.

That's "proposed"
That's not the same as real.
In fact, in this case it's much, much closer to imaginary.

So unless you can point to some actual Internet filtering in Australia, my original point stands.

Which censorship would that be?

It would have been very odd if she had, considering that there's no filtering happening in Australia.

I get those sorts of emails all the time - I'm the lead developer for a couple of our flagship products, and others in the company seem to think that means I'm a walking manual.

So like the GP, emails that wouldn't have existed if the sender had just read the manual (or even the error message in front of them) get left to age a bit before I reply - particularly if they're from a multiple offender

what sorts of sites do you visit that ads are such a problem for you?