The Australian Federal Election. Great Debate - General

I can't believe they brought the debate forward so it wouldn't be on at the same time as master chef.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;23614294]i don't understand how you couldn't be for blocking sites known to host stuff like child porn, the original motive of the filter? but i understand the worry about the filter extending to other stuff. that made no sense.[/QUOTE] It's a matter of trust, they have secret blacklist of sites where we can't go to. Blocks possible child porn and sites with high shock value and shit like that. Also blocks porn sites with women with small tits and slows down the internet by 40% I think.

Gillard wants to see Tony's federal erection.

Shittest election ever. Neither side is good.

Has the australian government ever been used for good and not evil? </outside observer>

[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;23633910]Blocks possible child porn and sites with high shock value and shit like that.[/QUOTE] What's wrong with that? [QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;23633910]Also blocks porn sites with women with small tits[/QUOTE] Which is illegal in Australia. The filter is meant to block out illegal content and content which is refused rating [QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;23633910]and slows down the internet by 40% I think.[/QUOTE] The evidence from the filter showed no negative impact at all on internet performance. URL blacklisting has no performance impact. If they started doing deep packet inspection, then you can expect degraded performance. [editline]04:33PM[/editline] [QUOTE=a203xi;23634066]Has the australian government ever been used for good and not evil? </outside observer>[/QUOTE] what?

[QUOTE=DogGunn;23634112] Which is illegal in Australia. The filter is meant to block out illegal content and content which is refused rating The evidence from the filter showed no negative impact at all on internet performance. URL blacklisting has no performance impact. [/QUOTE] It is also discrimination. Refused rating (or RC) != illegal. RC just means that the OFLC board has deemed it not fitting in another rating catagory, or the people who made it decided not to/couldn't afford to get it rated. Flash games are RC, does that make them illegal? Only a fool would say there is no negative speed impact caused by the internet filter. [editline]04:57PM[/editline] [QUOTE=DogGunn;23627957]There's no good alternative for this, but sadly it doesn't work. The Howard Government provided a large choice of free internet filters in an attempt to do this, but the uptake was minimal. [/QUOTE] That could be because Net Alert was an utter failure, some school kid bypassed the thing in under 30 minutes.

[QUOTE=Furah;23634436]It is also discrimination.[/QUOTE] What? How the fuck is it discrimination? You think some people should have access to child porn or something? [QUOTE=Furah;23634436]Refused rating (or RC) != illegal. RC just means that the OFLC board has deemed it not fitting in another rating catagory, or the people who made it decided not to/couldn't afford to get it rated. Flash games are RC, does that make them illegal?[/QUOTE] No, actually things that were refused classification is illegal to view, sell or import into Australia. I believe you're getting confused between [b]exempt from classification[/b] and refused classification. Anything that doesn't fall within the confounds of the OFLC ratings or ACMA ratings can show this logo: [img]http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/e/ex/exempt_for_classification.png[/img] [QUOTE=Furah;23634436]Only a fool would say there is no negative speed impact caused by the internet filter.[/QUOTE] Only a fool would not believe the evidence. The trial showed that the methods that would be used for the filter had no impact on performance whatsoever. [QUOTE=Furah;23634436]That could be because Net Alert was an utter failure, some school kid bypassed the thing in under 30 minutes.[/QUOTE] Sigh.

damn, I'm actually glad I can't vote

[QUOTE=DogGunn;23634583]What? How the fuck is it discrimination? You think some people should have access to child porn or something? No, actually things that were refused classification is illegal to view, sell or import into Australia. I believe you're getting confused between [b]exempt from classification[/b] and refused classification. Anything that doesn't fall within the confounds of the OFLC ratings or ACMA ratings can show this logo: [img]http://image.absoluteastronomy.com/images/encyclopediaimages/e/ex/exempt_for_classification.png[/img] Only a fool would not believe the evidence. The trial showed that the methods that would be used for the filter had no impact on performance whatsoever. Sigh.[/QUOTE] It's discriminating them because they have small breasts unlike 'normal' people. Exempt is for certain materials such an educational film or a dance performance. RC means it cannot be bought, hired or have a public exhibition. In no way does this make RC illegal. If it didn't affect speeds I wouldn't give a fuck about it. Unfortunately for me and everyone one else who does more than check emails and use forums, this isn't the case. Just Google for it, you'll come up with more links than you'll know what to do with.

[QUOTE=a203xi;23634066]Has the australian government ever been used for good and not evil? </outside observer>[/QUOTE] Self-Determination Policy. Pretty much most of what Gough Whitlam did, apart from spending to much.

I was kind of joking. But seriously, what do you think it looks like to the other countries when you guys and China are the only ones to support a system of censorship on the internet. Yeah, it's for a good cause though, who wouldn't want to give up their rights to stop child porn from being spread. Oh wait, there's probably numerous people in Australia looking at child porn right now. But at least we FEEL safe! Has all this religious right moderation crap even making things better for you guys? The violence being stripped from video games, the internet being filtered, etc. Does it even make a noticeable difference at all? I feel like Australia is some kind of testing ground for all these restrictive laws and rights-stripping practices that we get proposed here but have too much sense to actually pass, so I'm kind of curious.

[QUOTE=Hobo4President;23611723]that mining tax didn't seem such a bad idea.[/QUOTE] Someone had to stand up to the miners... Guess we're screwed now.

[QUOTE=Furah;23634945]It's discriminating them because they have small breasts unlike 'normal' people.[/QUOTE] HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA [QUOTE=Furah;23634945]Exempt if for certain materials such an educational film or a dance performance. RC means it cannot be bought, hired or have a public exhibition. In no way does this make RC illegal.[/quote] Actually that does make it illegal. If something cannot be shown, it's because it's illegal, otherwise what's stopping you? It's why publishing RC content on the internet is illegal as it's considered public exhibition. As for exempt content, the whole rationale is to stop wasting time. I just read up upon the OFLC and Flash games, they're conisdered video games so must be classified. [QUOTE=Furah;23634945]If it didn't affect speeds I wouldn't give a fuck about it. Unfortunately for me and everyone one else who does more than check emails and use forums, this isn't the case. Just Google for it, you'll come up with more links than you'll know what to do with.[/QUOTE] Here we are, the results from the filter pilot test. [url]http://whirlpool.net.au/img/article/1852/isp_filtering_live_pilot_report_low_res.pdf[/url] Participant6 – Negligible impact on file downloads, file uploads and web page downloads were recorded. Participant7 – Negligible impact on file downloads, file uploads and web page downloads were recorded. Participant8 – Filters on the ADSL2 and Ethernet services had a negligible impact on file downloads, file uploads and web page downloads. Filters on the dial-up service had a negligible impact on file downloads and web page downloads and a noticeable impact on file uploads. 2 participants experienced a noticeable decrease in performance, but the reason was not attributed to the filter. This is a decent sample size as the participants were ISPs. Read it for yourself.

The main issue here is that most child porn is acquired through bit torrents and its pretty impossible to filter them.

[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;23635331]The main issue here is that most child porn is acquired through bit torrents and its pretty impossible to filter them.[/QUOTE] you sure seem to know a lot about child porn, hmm....

[QUOTE=a203xi;23635387]you sure seem to know a lot about child porn, hmm....[/QUOTE] I know what I have read, I do not watch child porn. I also want to state now that I do not oppose the filter completely, the only thing I have an issue with is the secret black list.

[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;23635415]I also want to state now that I do not oppose the filter completely, the only thing I have an issue with is the secret black list.[/QUOTE] If you're not against the filter completely, how can you be against a secret blacklist? It's not as if they should make the blacklist public. That doesn't make any sense.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;23635773]If you're not against the filter completely, how can you be against a secret blacklist? It's not as if they should make the blacklist public. That doesn't make any sense.[/QUOTE] Because they can filter out any site without us knowing.

[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;23636113]Because they can filter out any site without us knowing.[/QUOTE] sigh...

I would know

Fair dinkum.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;23614617]abbott has already said he wants a bible on every desk in schools. [url]http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/all-kids-must-read-the-bible-federal-opposition-leader-tony-abbott-says/story-e6frf7l6-1225811885777[/url][/QUOTE] hes not saying that he would do it, hes just saying it would be a good thing, and I agree, although I doubt any of you atheist bigots would see why [editline]09:59PM[/editline] also work choices was a very good thing, the only thing it effected in a negative way was the corrupt unions [editline]10:01PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Lonestriper;23635107]Self-Determination Policy. Pretty much most of what Gough Whitlam did, apart from spending to much.[/QUOTE] he was the worst PM in australian history

[QUOTE=abcpea;23638035]hes not saying that he would do it, hes just saying it would be a good thing, and I agree, although I doubt any of you atheist bigots would see why[/QUOTE] He's saying that he believes it should be compulsory, and has said so on many occasions beforehand. I understand why learning about the Bible and other texts of a similar nature or background is good, but it's coming from someone who has a deep and lasting connection to the religion hes talking about. If an atheist came along and said, "we should make the Bible compulsory reading", it would be a different story as it wouldn't have the necessary implications that otherwise would come about. [QUOTE=abcpea;23638035]also work choices was a very good thing, the only thing it effected in a negative way was the corrupt unions[/quote] this. [QUOTE=abcpea;23638035]he was the worst PM in australian history[/QUOTE] this to.

[QUOTE=abcpea;23638035]hes not saying that he would do it, hes just saying it would be a good thing, and I agree, although I doubt any of you atheist bigots would see why [/QUOTE] Why does it have to be a Bible though? What about other religions with sacred texts?