Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:What's the point... (Score 2, Interesting) 222

Lol very naive, legislation creates the basic outline of an area that the government may move into. Anything reasonably in that area of responsibility if not specifically denied in the legislation is completely up to the department and minister, ceo / executive and minister *until the government says otherwise*.

The legislation doesn't mention the technical setup, the topography the subnets, how many switches, which brand of switches and servers, anti-virus policies and spam policies or anything else to do with the technical runnings of the network.

That's because it will be up to the department to come up with those policies and implement all those in the normal course of its operation.

Are you saying the ISP will offer no inline anti-spam, anti-virus measures because they're not specifically outlined in the legislation?


The department can do anything it likes regarding the day to day operations of its area of responsibility, and I can well assure you having been employed in three federal departments, brother, sister in-law, ex-wife, father in-law, mother in-law and various friends currently employed by the Commonwealth Government, policy decisions far bigger than implementing anti-childporn filters on public networks are made by public servants in The Nations Capital every single day.

There will be a policy decision made to implement filtering on the public network, that's how these things work, they will justify it in front of the Senate the same way they justify most of the things that government departments get away with that they have no authority for, if the Senate doesn't like it they will ask the government to implement legislation to stop it.

That's way the Australian Federal Government operates.

Comment Re:Question for Aussies (Score 0, Offtopic) 222

Lol this isn't insightful save for left wing fantasists.

Anybody who isn't in or completely shares the lefts beliefs is a "neo-con".

Yet it's the Labor party who tried so hard to implement government censorship on the Internet in Australia, not the "evil neocons" who had power over both houses of parliament for years. That must be *very* hard to reconcile.

Malcolm Turnbull a "true Liberal" LOL! A republican merchant banker who tossed a coin to decide whether to join Labor or the Liberals. In the US he'd be called a RINO or DINO, he holds no beliefs except for what gets him more money and fame. His 14% approval rating (remember) hardly showed great support among the electorate for the "true Liberal". In fact Liberals across the country absolutely could not stand him.

Tony Abbot brought down Rudd and nearly got elected over a first term government, unheard of in Australian politics. He also does enormous amounts of volunteer work out in central Australia, is a Rhodes scholar, vice captain of his local bush fire brigade, a volunteer life saver, etc, etc. Yet you try and paint him as some sort of monster. On the other hand lets look at the current Labor administration.

Most of them were to their ears in ratbag fringe left university politics (going over to Cuba as a Castro supporter in 1996! WTF?!), the majority of them graduated Uni straight into Union politics and most have never ever held a single job outside of left wing politics with not a hint of dirt "volunteer" work or anything that doesn't help their political career.

You need to brush up on the current state of affairs.

Comment Re:Big enough to give you everything you want (Score 2, Informative) 222

Given that the many "corporations" (small businesses and small ISPs save four) that currently offer internet access in Australia are in vicious competition with each other and services are improving yearly, yes. I would rather be able to say screw you Telstra 3g I'm going with Optus 3G because it's better, wait now I'm going with Internode because they're better than both.

Then say screw you government monopoly NBN ISP who has implemented filtering I'm going with....oh, all the other are gone or eye wateringly expensive now that they've lost most of their customers.

You live in a fantasy if you think you have more accountability over the Federal Government in Canberra than over a tiny ISP. And if you don't like corporations go with one of the many local ISPs.

And here's a tip for you: The majority of Australians *want* the Internet to be filtered, and the government is accountable to *them* not *you*. So now what?

Comment Re:What's the point... (Score 4, Interesting) 222

It doesn't have to get through the house of anything.

The department will argue that any filtering on it's own network is an operational issue well outside of the purvey of the house and completely under the responsibility of the department and minister.


Government departments don't need legislation to enable them to make decisions regarding the technical operations of their departments so unless the law that allows the NBN *specifically restricts* the implementation of a filter the department can and will demand the ISP implement filtering.

They will simply say "you don't have a right to download illegal material over the public network" if you complain.

I really wish people understood how the public service / executive and government work under our system, it really is very important.

Comment Re:What filter? (Score 0) 222

The NBN will be filtered, it's a state owned resource that the government is totally responsible for.

The executive doesn't need legislation enabling it to filter a network that it owns and is in charge of. In fact the argument will be made that the government is *required* and has no choice but to filter illegal material such as child porn and illegal information and music downloads on a government owned network in order to conform to its own laws regarding classification.

The government can't be seen breaking or facilitating the breaking of its own laws.

The NBN will be filtered, most private ISPs will be pushed out of business and Labor, Telstra and the Department of Broadband will (for all intents and purposes) enjoy control of the Internet in Australia for the masses.

Get it?

One more time.

In order for the Government to force private operators to implement a government filter requires legislation. The government will argue that any filtering on it's own network (the NBN) is an *operational decision* and at the purvey of the "private" ISP (lol), the department that is responsible for it and the minister responsible for the department. Anybody who doesn't like it can go use a separate private network, nobody is "forced" to use the NBN and nobody has a "right" to download unclassified and illegal material over the publics network, anymore than a person has a right to drive a car on a public road.

Except what ISP will be able "compete" with the state owned, taxpayer subsidised, $10,000 a household network? Very few and they will have to charge far more once they lose half their customers to it.

It's the height of naiveté to believe that Steven Conroy (who is in charge of the NBN and who masterminded it) who argued hard and passionately for Internet filtering as well as Labor who believe in censorship just "gave up" and won't make filtering mandatory on the STATE OWNED NETWORK. The Labor party and governments in general don't work that way, terribly sorry but the NBN will be filtered it's a foregone conclusion.

Not to worry, some ISPs will survive and if you want to use their networks unfiltered you'll be able to, obviously losing most of their customers and the loss of their purchasing power for bandwidth compared to the NBN for offshore data will mean their prices will have to rise dramatically . I predict $150 a month for normal ADSL speeds and data packages if you wish to continue to use a private network.

A monopoly ISP run on a state owned network. I can't believe geeks here are happy about that situation it took decades to wrest control of the phone system of the monopoly telco, now people who should no better are cheering for us to have something *worse*.

Comment Re:The reason why (Score 1) 450

The blacklist has not gone away, the government has simply gone quiet on it because Labor are going to nationalise Australias biggest ISP's network (Telstras), roll out a state owned fibre network to the home (the NBN) and of course the state owned network will be filtered.

Strangely nobody seems to have put two and two together and even more bizarrely one finds many "geeks" and tech heads throwing their support in for the NBN, dazzled by the idea of fibre to the home, not thinking that Steven Conroy - the pig headed minister responsible for the Internet Filter furor, is the same minister entirely responsible for coming up with and implementing the NBN and has previously alluded to the fact that the NBN will be filtered as though it is a forgone conclusion - of course the government will filter it's own public network.

So we will have a filter and state owned consumer network, smaller ISP's will be driven out of business (the government's spending $10k per household to roll out this network to every home whether you want it or not) and of course the government ISP will be subsidised to ensure that access to it is "affordable" by all. Which is simply code for we don't want this to embarrasingly fail when nobody signs up because without subsidies it would cost $350 a month per customer to recoup the investment before the infrastructure needs replacing.

What private ISP can compete with that?

A few possibly unfiltered private ISPs will remain, but they will be niche and necessarily expensive once they lose the mass of their customer base.

Comment Re:Call me a extremist if you want (Score 2, Interesting) 706

Last year someone through a rock through my front window (actually a potato from a potato gun).

My 6 month old son was sitting next to the window as he used to do every morning enjoying looking out at the front yard and cars going by. The blinds were shredded from the glass which thank god took the velocity out of the flying shards, if not for those blinds being a quarter closed it would have been him that was shredded, I came running out to see glass all over and around him, my other half almost hysterical.

The young men were caught after I chased them down the road (filled with a rage that I later learned comes with fatherhood when one's young are placed in physical danger - dangerous thing it is). The young men ended up hiding in a ladies backyard begging her to call the police. I too called the police as I didn't want to go jumping fences as they did. They were taken away by the police.

In any case I thought I'd never see them again, but over then next few nights each of the three came to the door to apologise to us. They paid to fix the window and generally did the right thing.

They had to front up to me and endure a lecture from about how quickly a stupid thing like firing a potato gun at a house can spiral into them hiding in a backyard afraid for their safety as a 6'4, 105kg slightly crazed individual tries to catch them - with every intention of hurting them. I told them how relieved I was that I *hadn't* caught them as my life would have been drastically altered as well. That they were now know to the police and as one already had a juvenile record this stupidity meant he may spend some time in Juvenile hall. And that if those blinds hadn't protected my son that they would all A) Be up on serious criminal charges and B) Would have to live knowing that they had caused major suffering to a baby. All from the stupid childish decision to just smash some shit up.

Anyway the police rang later to ask what I'd like to do and I said we all did stupid things as teenagers, I think they've had enough to which he agreed and that was that no charges laid.

I'm not sure what the moral of the story is to this site, possibly a real world anti-dote to the ravings of some of the posters here that seem to think they live in a dystopian police state where the slightest infraction in western countries ruins ones life.

Generally not, the police are generally pretty good and so are the courts and your neighbours.

And to your post that it's hardly a crime when a "child" (teenagers ain't children) when you decide to step outside of the bounds of the Law (and I'm talking real law here intentionally destroying peoples physical property) you step over a line and into world where *anything* can happen such as a beating from an enraged father or the risk of damaging a human in the process of your pointless destructive behaviour. Laws like that are there for two reasons: one to serve as a warning to foolish young men who make an immature decision mistake, two to enable prosecution of people who repeatedly and maliciously do destroy someone elses property.

Comment Re:Coal miners are unhappy with their salaries... (Score 5, Interesting) 1018


My brother in law drives a coal truck and is on $140000 a year for four days a week work (12 hour shifts).

His meals and accommodation are paid for and he's flown there and home once a fortnight.

Not bad for someone who would be regarded as white trash by most (uneducated, four kids didn't, finish high school and yet earns more then most college graduates)...

I'm starting to think in my old age that Uni / College is for the most part the 21st century version of indentured servitude.

Comment Re:How secure (Score 1, Informative) 491

Yes you describe the history of the world perfectly, those silly people of the last century with their struggling economies and debt ridden governments. Compared to the last thirty years of the fiat system with our booming economies and lean mean fiscally sound governments and amazing growth, our masterful wizards of the economy and "fiscal policy" analysts whos "advanced theories" still boil down to "print more money". Well the people of the last century were just complete Neanderthals who knew *nothing* of creating wealth in comparison to us and our advanced scientific economics! .

Because as we all know the gold standard surely prevented the American economy from growing until it did away with it in 1970, then it was amazing! The economic growth of last 30 years have been just spectacular compared to the last century.

Same with the UK when it left the gold standard, lucky they got off it just in time so that they could become a super power. Hold on...that doesn't sound right. A two bit country mired in debt, stagnation and unemployment with 1 in 4 people employed by the government with infinite government spending and relentless inflation. That's better.

And China who hold vast gold reserves, the fools they'll never grow while they constrain themselves in any way to that boring old system! It's like they've read a history book and seen that every powerful nation ever has risen to power by constraining its government spending to the physical representation of the nations wealth - rather than the fictional representation that reserve banks present.

What ever you are describing in your post is one of pure fiction in your mind, and absolutely nothing to do with reality and history. Countries rise to power on the gold standard, once in power they fall prey to hubris and unshackle themselves and (more importantly) their governments, move to fiat systems then end up with governments chewing up 20%, 60% - 150%! of their economic output, writing blank cheques to themselves and printing infinite amounts of money

All the while the plebs sit around being *glad* that a handful of bankers and political economists are bankrupting the country because we sure wouldn't want to go back to how it was in the 1920s, 1950s or 1960s when a lowly unskilled worker could actually afford to buy a decent house and take care of his family on his own wage.

Also you do realise that most countries tried fiat systems before the last era of the gold standard don't you? In the 18th and 19th century they were such disasters that they all moved back to the gold standard post-haste. There is a great deal of talk recently of a new international currency based on...the gold standard.

Comment Re:WTF (Score 1) 187

Am I the only one, who after using Linux for ten years now on my desktop was happy when video started coming out in flash? Where before I could never, ever get firefox / konq / nautilus to play video natively without far to much mucking around and hacking and forever having upgrades breaking those hacks. Now I can watch everything flawlessly. Where before flash embedded video become the standard I rarely could watch *anything* without some sort of problem arising now I can watch 99.9% of everything. I tell you I get a cold feeling in the pit of my stomach when people say "let the browser handle video!!?1111!".

It did. For a decade before Flash and as far as I'm concerned those were the bad old days and I pray the Internet never goes back.

Comment Re:In other words (Score 2, Insightful) 332

Insane the mindless sound bites that go for +5 around here these days.

The "free market" is just two people exchanging one thing for another thing so of course it can exist outside of government regulation. Unless you're going to try and say it requires laws to compel people to trade. In which case I cite the last 20,000 years of human history.

The problem with the free market is that it's just that it's too rough and ready so some government regulation can smooth it out (or completely ruin it, or be used to kill competition or new entries as is often the case).

I think you mean government *protection* which is of course what governments were created for in the first place, not to *make* a free market as you confusingly infer, but to protect the people in it.

Comment Re:Competition (Score 3, Insightful) 332

You fall into the tired old trap of the left in thinking that children are mindless automatons that will do whatever adults program them to do.

I have three robust defiant boys with opposing personalities and beliefs that proves you wrong. If you tell my youngest to draw a fireman/firefigher he'll just as likely draw a car with a clown driving it (who incidentally will more than likely also be a man, perhaps you could give us the gender neutral term for clown..or your argument is a bit of BS).

Children aren't computers to be manipulated to your own creepy ends of making them not see reality- that firemen are 90% men - into what you want them to see - that you wish fire fighters were equal parts men and women (not reality). Something that is of course never going to happen as there's simply not an equal number of physically strong females on planet (oops there's that reality thing again).

So what if they draw a firefighter as a man...90% of firefighters in the world ARE MEN and no, it's not because of the tired old "oppression/inequality" drek trotted out day in day out by academia, it's simply because of boring old physics: women don't have as much muscle as men.

No amount of manipulation of the language and childrens minds is ever going to change that. Also there was a time where if your political beliefs required messing with kids heads your beliefs were seen as evil.


Comment Re:Competition (Score 1, Flamebait) 332

I've got an idea, how about you get the hell out of other peoples children's heads.

They'll draw whatever reality looks like to them, not what some creep wants to manipulate them into thinking to suit said creeps cult like political agenda / religion.

In boring old reality 90% of firefighters are men, ergo drawing firefighters as men is the rational thing for a child to do. If a child draws a female firefighter purely because of mental manipulation from adults they have been indoctrinated against reality and then we end up with more people like you....

Oh, I get it.

Comment Re:SELL! (Score 2, Informative) 643

You say "yes" with such authority, and yet are so completely and utterly wrong, it's ok though matters of "irrational" behaviour are generally completely out of the grasp of people on this site (Ipod: no wireless, less space than a Nomad, LAME).

The value in gold comes in the form of 2000+ years of inertia. If a collapse came it would find a value as a method of exchange. If you could say to someone I'll give you 1oz, 10oz, 100oz for a gun, that person would be reasonably confident that they could do the same thing for something else of use to them. Not everything, but something as someone *will* accept it as a form of payment.

Gold has intrinsic value to humans. Now whether that's irrational or not (which is why people around here just can't seem to understand it), gold has value to people simply because it *always has been a symbol of value*. If there's a crash it will retain *some* value, it'll have different value to everyone but nearly everyone will accept that it has some sort of value either now, or in the future or maybe if they just go over the border where things are better they can sell it there...

So you're not going to get rich holding gold in the event of a crash, but your paper money will be completely valueless (except as fuel for a fire). Gold on the other hand, will retain some value to some people, and in the future as the country rebuilds (or you use your gold to get out of the country and go to a country where it's still valuable) it will eventually become valuable to you again. So even if it does go to zero for a while to the people in your situation and area, you can still use it to get to a better place where it holds its traditional value.

Finally crashes never just happen, the government always devalues the paper money first (you got a $100's now worth $20 of this new currency) gold and silver are almost completely immune to government meddling that bonds, shares, paper money and real estate are subject to.

*Me has some silver and gold in a safe and likes the fact that it makes the people who told me (on this very site) ten years ago that "lol gold is dead, get into shares your going to lose" burn. They've been very quiet for the last few years.

Comment Re:Correct, but also incorrect (Score 3, Interesting) 643

You've created a strawman, attributed it to "they" and seem to be completely oblivious to the actual argument, and certainly nobody say there would be "no problems", they say it would constrain the government to only spend money that the country actually has right now.

When money is backed by something physical it prevents the government from spending more than it has by printing (or adding ten zeros) to its bank account whenever it wants, therefore devaluing the money that is already in existence.

You can't print gold so the government has to try a lot harder to spend money it doesn't actually have.

That's the real point of a hard money currency system, the fact that you hear gold (and silver) all the time is that it's just a convenient, historic store of wealth, if there was something more convenient the argument would be made for that.

Also you conveniently leave out the fact that it was while on the gold standard that the US, the UK and France became world powers, and once they went to fiat currencies became mired in debt and devaluation and lost their prosperity and declined.

It's not about money, it's about an inbuilt restriction to preventing politicians writing blank cheques until the country is broke, like most western countries are - as we see the beginnings of with Greece, Ireland, the UK and soon The US if it doesn't get its spending under control and cut the services it can't afford.

Finally you make it out like the current Fiat money system has proved itself superior, yet every single fiat currency in history has imploded at around 50 years due to unrelenting printing. You do realise it's only been implemented in the US for 38 years and that government spending has been increasing exponentially over that time compared to revenue? Do you think that can continue forever? Or do you think they'll get to a point and say, that's enough spending?

Slashdot Top Deals

All the simple programs have been written.