Basically, what author John Scalzi calls McKean's Inversion

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but aren't you kind of making the previous poster's point?

Exactly. Just ask Penny Arcade:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/5/1/

Senator Conroy has been hugely inconsistent about the content of the blacklist. First it was "child porn", then he added "unwanted content" without clarifying what that actually meant and then he changed tack to "Refused Classification", which he then proceeded to repeatedly mention in conjunction with "child porn" in order to fool the public into thinking that the two were synonymous.

Also worth considering is the security of the blacklist. The Australian Communications & Media Authority's blacklist (upon which the filter's will be based) has been leaked several times before and it appears that the Government has done nothing to avoid repeating the experience besides threaten any local sites that host or link to it with $10,000 per day fines. So given the number of ways in which the blacklist can be leaked, it's practically inevitable that it will happen again.

If the ACMA blacklist is what Conroy says it is (ie. child porn), then the Australian Government will be directly responsible for providing pedophiles with a choice list of child porn on the Web. If the blacklist isn't what Conroy says it is, then the Government will have flat out lied to the public about what it is they're being "protected" from (in addition to the lies that they've told already).

Neither outcome makes the Government look good.

I'm sure it'll sound just fine at 320, and you can fit twice as much (or 4x- cant remember is 128 is per channel or stereo), without drastically changing the technology.

The bitrate is specified for both channels. So, a 128kbps MP3 has 64kbits allocated to each channel. As for 320kbps being good, it's generally accepted amongst audiophiles (at least, the ones that are willing to touch MP3 at all), that 256kbps is the ideal bitrate for "archive-quality" recordings. Funnily enough, it's also close to the bitrate of the ATRAC1 codec (not MDLP, which uses Sony's new ATRAC3 codec). The quality increase in going to 320kbps is generally considered not worth the extra space neeeded. At 256kbps (approximately a 5:1 compression ratio), you should fit 5 hours of audio per 700Mb CD-R. 128kpbs is the most common because it is considered the best compromise between quality and space (I personally think it can make difficult material sound like shit, so I normally encode at 256kbps). Battery times for MP3 players are usually calculated for 128kbps MP3s because higher bitrates require a faster data transfer rate (because the higher the bitrate, the more data stored for a given second of audio), which increases power consumption and reduces battery life. This is especially important on HDD-based players such as Creative's Nomad Jukebox series and the Archos Jukebox series.

As for the audio capacity of DVD-Audio and SACD, it'd depend greatly on the bitrate of the audio used. Is there a technical handbook a la the "Red Book" that gives technical details such as this? In order for there to be compatibilty a standard had to have been drafted. Given the capacity of DVDs (around 4.7Gb), DVD-Audio would still be able to hold a serious amount of music even if there were many channels. Even so, there would have to be a reasonable limit on the number of channels and so forth, because most people have at most a 5.1 setup anyway. Your fancy new DVD-Audio isn't going to sell well if it can only be played properly on the ÜberSystem 2002 the Jones's have in their living room.