Did the US congress move to Australia??
- Thread starter Bozo
- Start date
I doubt it, but I can only hope that they all stay there. Austrailia, you can have the whole lot and please keep them.
The democratic congress is no better than the republician: They both just rubber-stamp Bush's plans (while making lots of noise) and his plans are really bad.
Bad President! Bad President!
The democratic congress is no better than the republician: They both just rubber-stamp Bush's plans (while making lots of noise) and his plans are really bad.
Bad President! Bad President!
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
We need a proper left wing in this country.
Otherwise you'll fly around in circles?
Sorry, couldn't resist.Back on topic, yep Howard caught Bush disease -> Stupidity, and was promptly shown up by a teenager...
Chewy509
Wotty wot wot.
Actually being on topic, 30mins to kill a content filter! Yeah why not.
As we all know, there is always around technology, and all it took as a teenager 30mins to find a way to disable an Internet content filter, which the government gives to families for free. (Government cost of the project was $84mil).
I'm not surprised at all.
However at least the Australian government cares enough about society to at least help parents control what their kids do whilst online... (even though the implementation is deeply flawed).
As we all know, there is always around technology, and all it took as a teenager 30mins to find a way to disable an Internet content filter, which the government gives to families for free. (Government cost of the project was $84mil).
I'm not surprised at all.
However at least the Australian government cares enough about society to at least help parents control what their kids do whilst online... (even though the implementation is deeply flawed).
Bozo
0
It's the parents responsibility to control what their kids do on the net. If the parent was a responsible person, they would have looked for a way to block unwanted content. It is not the governments job. Besides, what about all the people that don't have kids? It was their tax money too.
Bozo :joker:
A responsible parent wouldn't be trying to block the content at all. Inform the kid, let them know what is safe and what is right, then let them make decisions.
Going on the internet is like going out into the world. It's all there; good and bad, safe and dangerous. Inform the kid before they go, talk to them when they get back. Answer any questions they have. Oh, and hint that you can keep an eye on where they are going
$84M is an insane amount of money for a program that any industry insider could tell you isn't going to work. Particularly one that isn't going to benefit the majority of the populace. Smells like pork to me...
This is why I'm a small-government social liberal...what the republicans were before they found god. :-/
Going on the internet is like going out into the world. It's all there; good and bad, safe and dangerous. Inform the kid before they go, talk to them when they get back. Answer any questions they have. Oh, and hint that you can keep an eye on where they are going
$84M is an insane amount of money for a program that any industry insider could tell you isn't going to work. Particularly one that isn't going to benefit the majority of the populace. Smells like pork to me...
This is why I'm a small-government social liberal...what the republicans were before they found god. :-/
Chewy509
Wotty wot wot.
I agree 100%.
Mercutio
Fatwah on Western Digital
This is at least the third time in the last 10 years that Oz has made some kind of effort at Internet Censorship; I don't think it's a new idea for the down under folk.
I am glad that it was ineffective, though.
I am glad that it was ineffective, though.
paugie
0
I had a friend whose baby (2 years old) was playing games on his father's PC. I saw him standing on a stool, the mouse in his hand, clicking and playing a word game. The baby was looking to broaden his vocabulary while still unable to control his drool.
Though I have not had 1st hand information on what kind of development the baby had in the next 2 or 3 years, I am pretty sure, he had browsing the internet down to pat (as contrasted to my wife).
I may be wrong (great possibility) but I don't think responsible parents would be discussing the ills of pornography with their bright 4 or 5 year old. Could this be one of the instances where a filter would be helpful? Accidents do happen.
Though I have not had 1st hand information on what kind of development the baby had in the next 2 or 3 years, I am pretty sure, he had browsing the internet down to pat (as contrasted to my wife).
I may be wrong (great possibility) but I don't think responsible parents would be discussing the ills of pornography with their bright 4 or 5 year old. Could this be one of the instances where a filter would be helpful? Accidents do happen.
paugie
0
BTW, is 30 minutes to disable a filter fast?
I was under the (movies) impression that a crack could be done in less than a minute.
BTW the first question is legit. The second statement is a joke. I am no programmer. I tried to learn "BASIC" and failed miserably.
I was under the (movies) impression that a crack could be done in less than a minute.
BTW the first question is legit. The second statement is a joke. I am no programmer. I tried to learn "BASIC" and failed miserably.
Chewy509
Wotty wot wot.
Depends on how the filter works, some can be disabled simply by enabling the proxy setting in IE and using an anonymous proxy... Others requiring modifying a registry entry (to break the snopping), and others it's just a matter of killing the filter itself using task manager...
For a component IT person, 5 minutes should all be that is required. (Heck just google: "disable netnanny" should be enough to get the instructions).
PS. Googling "Disable Netnanny" brought this up in less than 2secs... http://www.peacefire.org/bypass/Net_Nanny/
Less than a minute is tricky, as many will require at least one reboot.
time
0
Australia's leader is its Prime Minister. For the past eleven years, this has been John Winston Howard, aka "the man of steel" (a title bestowed by George W Bush).
He's also been known as "the lying rodent" (by members of his own political party).
His party ("Liberal" by name, but think Republican) currently trails the "Labor" opposition (a weird mix of Democrat and Unions with a dash of Republican) by 14 points in the opinion polls, with less than three months to go until the election.
In other words, a government that's stupid enough to pay $84 million to license an Internet filter is going to be tossed out real soon now.
The next prime minister (current opposition leader) achieved fame recently for a drunken night out in New York that culminated in a visit to a lap-dancing club. His popularity with Oz voters is at a record high.
He's also been known as "the lying rodent" (by members of his own political party).
His party ("Liberal" by name, but think Republican) currently trails the "Labor" opposition (a weird mix of Democrat and Unions with a dash of Republican) by 14 points in the opinion polls, with less than three months to go until the election.
In other words, a government that's stupid enough to pay $84 million to license an Internet filter is going to be tossed out real soon now.
The next prime minister (current opposition leader) achieved fame recently for a drunken night out in New York that culminated in a visit to a lap-dancing club. His popularity with Oz voters is at a record high.
paugie
0
Has the Filipino nation been relocated to Australia?
This makes me recall our former President Estrada who was impeached and charged with plunder. He had quite a few mistresses. Each mistress was supposed to have a mansion or two each. Many stories were told about his drinking and gambling all night and couldn't perform his Presidential duties by day. Still he was the most popular (percentage of votes received) President the Philippines ever elected.
time
0
JFK springs to mind as an American parallel.
But seriously, I'm misrepresenting him. The incident occurred four years ago when he was not yet leader (he was a shadow minister, which is doubtless a completely foreign concept to our American friends: just pretend there's such a thing as someone who critiques whatever the Secretary of State does, with a view to some day maybe getting their job). He was also trying to curry favour with a little-known billionaire called Rupert Murdoch (Fox-branded media and most newspapers in countries like the UK and Australia) by socializing with the editor of The New York Post (apparently a bit of a colorful character - Australian, obviously).
But seriously, I'm misrepresenting him. The incident occurred four years ago when he was not yet leader (he was a shadow minister, which is doubtless a completely foreign concept to our American friends: just pretend there's such a thing as someone who critiques whatever the Secretary of State does, with a view to some day maybe getting their job). He was also trying to curry favour with a little-known billionaire called Rupert Murdoch (Fox-branded media and most newspapers in countries like the UK and Australia) by socializing with the editor of The New York Post (apparently a bit of a colorful character - Australian, obviously).
Tannin
0
Hmmm ... he claims that the night on the piss was out of character, which it probably was. He's a right-wing (by Labor standards) christian and would be better suited as leader of the Liberal Party than of Labor. He's also intelligent, honest, thoughtful, and will probably make a good leader. Certanly a better leader than the current slippery, self-serving sanctimonious scumbag.