Only that the whale species which are now hunted (in very limited quantities) are not threathened by extinction.
The Japanese whalers are planning to hunt humpback whales http://www.smh.com.au/national/hunt-threatens-300m-whalewatching-industry-20111223-1p7rz.html and these are classified as threatened.
they deflect attention from painful decisions that need to be taken in regards to fishery policy by focusing attention on whaling which is essentially free for them - as they do not have a whaling fleet or culture of whaling.
This has nothing to do with fishing stocks. For a start, whales are mammals, not fish. The whale watching industry in Australia is worth more than 31 million dollars a year, worlwide the value is in billions.
The humpback whales now travelling up the East Coast of Australia once numbered 500 and now, due to the whaling ban now number over 18,000.
Do you think that the humpbacks would come anywhere near a boat if the Japanese whalers once again start harpooning them as they've been planning to do? You'd see a multi-billion dollar industry destroyed.
Actually, Australian fisheries are in a far better condition than many around the world. They do especially well when compared to Japanese fisheries, if there are any left.
I really hate to defend the TSA but there is a legitimate infiltration vector that this does address - that employees beyond the checkpoint can being in substances and transfer them to passengers
The simple solution is to put the employees through the same process as the passengers. Everyone who enters the area gets the same security treatment, even the head of Airport Security. This is much simpler than randomly accosting passengers in the departure lounge. Wouldn't it be safer to not disturb the passengers even further?
I struck an annoyance similar to this in Manila Airport. Once we were through the security checks, scanning, frisking, etc we were herded into a roped off area only after again having our baggage and ourselves scanned and frisked, etc. This was because we were going to Australia, apparently.
Jet travel is stressful enough without these extra annoyances. Make a secure area and scan everyone who passes in through the barrier once only. It would be nice to wear lace-up shoes again while travelling by air
Please, proper terminology. They're not stepping up to the plate, they're... uh, what is it they call 'em in krikkit?
Stepping up to the pitch. Yeah. Go UK!
The correct term in cricket is "walking to the the crease".
You are essentially describing "NAT". There is no "NAT" in ipv6.
There can be NAT in ipv6 if that is what you want, but really, NAT is only essential in the ip address starved ipv4. NAT in ipv6 is an unnecessary complexity and an abomination. It doesn't add anything to security and it takes away from network interconnectivity.
has a warrant and asks you to open the trunk of you car? Do you feel police is forcing you do to self-incrimination? I don't think they're forcing you to say you are guilty of anything, they want to check your property to see if you actually are guilty of anything.
If a policeman has a warrant to open the boot of my car then I will assume that if I don't comply then the policeman will break it open and damage my car in the process. There's no point to resistance in this situation but in the case of an encrypted file they won't be able to break in without your assistance. It's a matter of practicality, not legality.
Keep in mind please that no filter has yet come to pass... if you're in Australia, write to your MP. If not... wish us luck
(Note: I work at an ISP, but I speak for myself, not my employer)
I live in Australia and I wrote to Senator on this matter back in November 2008. I'm yet to receive a reply. I don't really expect a reply. Senator Conroy simply doesn't care about opposition to the net filter.
They're passing a law that's going to make extensive long-term data storage mandatory, and it's the companies who get to pay for it. Isn't the government generous?
It won't be the companies who pay for data retention. It will be the poor customers. We'll pay for our own surveillance. Isn't the government generous?
Um, we're a democratic republic, somewhat similar to your own country
No, Australia is a constitutional monarchy, the Queen of England is Australia's monarch.
Remember these people are guests in the United States. Like any other situation where a person is a guest, they don't get to come in and make themselves at home, sleep on your sofa and eat out of your fridge.
If you wish to treat guests to your country in such a manner then I guess I'll choose somewhere more welcoming when I go on holidays or business.
The difference between reality and unreality is that reality has so little to recommend it. -- Allan Sherman
