The latest Roy Morgan face-to-face poll has Labor’s two-party lead up to 58.5-41.5 from 56.5-43.5 a fortnight ago. Labor is up 2.5 per cent on the primary vote to 49 per cent, the Coalition is down 1.5 per cent to 36 per cent and the Greens are steady on 8.5 per cent.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Morgan: 58.5-41.5
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
655 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 » Show All
Enough on the internet already. Anyone would think they’d stumbled on a blog for IT weekly. Let’s talk about how hopeless Bishop is and who would make a better Opp. Treasurer. I’m willing to argue from the fibs side.
GP is a filter, a strange inverted sort that lets all the crap IN, time to pump the bilge and move on from this one
Actually, it appears this will not be the case unless chosen by the user
http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/10/13/no-opt-out-filtered-internet
So you can either choose to have illegal material filtered out (and why not), or a larger list
Lay off the cats, Thomas. The three legged one and the Chinchilla would object. They fancy themselves, much like Malcolm Fluffballs,
before retiring tonight I ask the question again
how do you block satellite transmission?
remember the internet is not just carried on some submarine cable. lol
case closed re a “filter”
Booooooooooring
Incidentally, commercial TV is self regulated. The TV industry (i.e. representatives from the TV stations) decide what content they are willing to show (of course they can’t show Refused Classification material).
That is the system that should be in place for films. I see absolutely no need for the OFLC to have anything to do with classifying films. All they do is waste a few million dollars a year on fees to lawyers.
It depends what problems we define. The government wants to define the problems as child porn and pornography in general.
So as I said above, the filter will not stop people getting access to child porn one iota. There is no technically feasible way, sort of disconnecting the internet, to stop people distributing child porn online. And even if you did pull the plug people would go lo-tech and share bootleg VHS’ and the like. Going after the people that make it and the people that consume is the solution.
More in relation to what you’re asking about anorexia. Say I’m a dad and my teenage girl is looking up anorexia websites, and I’m worried. What the government, and Xenophon (I think) would like to do is simply block every single website on the internet that mentions anorexia. Now as you could tell there would be huge issues with that like the enormous amount of false positives and immense speed slowdowns associated with searching and filtering through the sites. But remember this wouldn’t just block it for my daughter, but for EVERYONE in the country.
An alternative is to use a program like “Net Nanny” which, if you tell it too, will block websites about anorexia, or you specifically highlight which websites you want blocked and let the rest through. But you can also see problems with this. What’s to stop the girl going to the library or something to look up the websites?
So this is getting a way from the issue of filtering a bit, but I think the only way to deal with these kind of issues is to address the root cause. eg. Why is she looking up anorexia websites? Is she being teased? Rather than simply making myself feel better with a bandaid solution.
With the Star Wars program perhaps?
So if ever Kate was paid to make a video bouncing around in a wet K07 t-shirt, we couldn’t see it because it would filtered out?
We may as well bloody join the priesthood?
That is of course true. The government does have the power to restrict TV content under the communications power should it so choose.
Nah, it would be there
But is it boring? If Shanahan states boldly and loudly that she’s a gona then it’s not too far into the distant that she’ll either fall on her sword or be pushed and then who…
btb has anyone seen the new magazine ‘The Week’ edited by David Salter, ex ABC. He was on 747 talking about the new publication. It’s supposed to be a distillation of the news of the week – all the best op ed pieces in one mag. Guess who headed the list in week one? Mr Glen Milne.
Incorrect. Further details emerged last week that even the “opt-out” blacklist will contain thousands of sites on top of what the ACMA deems illegal. This includes websites the Minister says are “unwanted” or “inappropriate”.
Again, a huge issue is that unlike with film, tv, books, radio etc. what’s allowed and what isn’t allowed is not determined by the Classification Board but by bureaucrats and politicians. We don’t know what they’re blocking and we don’t know why they’re blocking it.
Finland also tried a filter. The list was eventually leaked. It included not only legal pornographic sites, but non-pornographic completely benign websites as well. When you have a secret list with zero accountability and zero transparency the room for error is there.
That’s enough from me on the filter.
774 (radio that is)
about as realistic as “filtering” the internet.
I again propose the three legged cat, aka, Placido di Moggio for Shadow Treasurer, the greatest Treasurer there never was; and the Chinchilla, Edwina, as Shadow Minister for Julie Bishop. She’s blonde, blue eyed, stares and stares and stares, and ain’t got a lot to say. Occasional utterances. No one notices. That’s about it for the Opposition for the moment, I reckon.
OZ “You don’t accidentally stumble on it (porn) ”
This is th second time you hav used th most unsubstantiated statement I’ve ever seen posted
No , kids do not find Net porn kids by accident , they actualy look for it , kids ar kids On planet earth kids do inquisitive /naughty things seeking out what they should not
Society (via Govenment) is there to protect them from adults , whether extremist Libertarians like it or not
Then we hav th repeated claim this is some sort of sinister ’secret’ Govenment conspiracy George Orwell 1984 type argument , almost claiming a “Mary Poppins” may get blocked
Then th false argument Oh legal content will be blocked…who says so , and which pollie is that silly , no th argument is another silly one
Then there’s th spurious argument Oh there ar “alternatives”…red herring , you do not believe th principal in th first place because quote “its mandatory”
Then there’s th spurious argument : its th Parents responsibility , tell me you want grog laws sales to kids abolished seeing Parents can also take responsibility there
Technology another excuse …solve it , do not hide behind it
Th right to no censorship does not extend to kids , and if somwe adults ar denied porn , bad luck
There is a desirabel place for libertarian views , but Net prevention of child porn is taking that view to th extreme , based SOLELY on it being mandatory that ALL kids get blocked from chold porn and that is th REEL objection …this view of kids freedom to self devil themselves is far beyond community and most parents standards
Obama’s all for it.
Well, in Poland at least.
Thanks Oz, for you answer. Much appreciated,
Now Abbott still on about phonegate on Lateline. FFS what a joke.
now we’re talkin’… let’s for arguments sake take Turnbull out of the equation. Put Costello in as leader and Hockey as deputy and treasurer – that could work.
que? mr fawlty
Now Abbott still on about phonegate on Lateline. FFS what a joke.
What’s he saying?
Do you honestly think children seek out CHILD pornography?
I think society and government are two separate things. Government doesn’t necessarily work on behalf of society.
We HAVE “grog laws”, and children buy alcohol every day. This doesn’t help your argument at all.
The objection is that it WON’T WORK, and is thus a big waste of money that could be better spent paying AFP officers so that they can have better person power and technology to find the real criminals, the people who make the illegal content in the first place.
Dunno, my ears haven’t stopped bleeding yet
Was there some particularly riveting Lateline tonight, was there?
sorry Ron, there may be a good point or two in there, but I can’t for the life of me understand you. Did you come off the Chatsworth Estate?
Anyone?
Leigh Sales intro claiming Labor retaining AWA’s despite Rudd declaring them ‘dead and buried’.
Keep reading his posts. Sooner or later you figure out where the fullstops are meant to go, which makes things easier to understand.
Shows
one of he best investments would be in “bots” that would track and maintain OLAP cubes on based on set criteria.eg word,image,syntax strings etc.
This would allow a real time analytical environment to allow prosecution much quicker, also police etc could also use as a database for research,trends etc.
So, Shows On and Oz, given what you’re saying, are you able to influence the policy makers?
Seems they are going to allow existing AWAs only to be reatined indefinitely. Can’t say I’m surprised, but I disagree with the move.
Dammit, I missed Lateline.
What was Abbot carping on about?
Is this kind of like spyders like how search engines work?
These are the sorts of things I agree with, the AFP need resources so they can stay ahead of the technology curve, and they need money to train officers so they have the skills to outwit the people peddling this stuff. THAT is a better place to put the money.
Dario is in another time zone because Abbott’s just on where I’m watching.
“Do you honestly think children seek out CHILD pornography?”
In your world , kids just seek out on th internet th latest Shakespeare , and all th other non naughty things of life Which Century backwards ar you in
“The objection is that it WON’T WORK”
No , th objection from th poster was it was quote “mandatory” An extreme libertarian view Now if youyr objection is on functionality , then argue technology solution because surely cost would not be a consideration with children unless you want a AFP sitting on every home post box
Well I hope the fine print is ONLY IF THE EMPLOYEE WANTS IT.
The mad monk is making a goose of its self on LL if you can get away from the current nonsense
LEIGH SALES: What’s your party doing wrong Tony?
TONY ABBOTT: Well, nothing Leigh
Hahahahahahahahahaha
The key word was CHILD Ron, that is why it was all in capitals.
Yes, both parties must agree
He was on in the intro, which is what I was talking about earlier
Well in practical terms this is a minor change.
Most employees will be wanting more money given that inflation is 5%
Most employers will want changes to conditions to get that. So doesn’t that mean they would have to go to a statutory agreement, not an AWA?
Possibly, I guess it would depend on whether their agreements were written with and indexing to inflation. I can just see this as being a big thorn in the side going forward. There’ll be no new AWAs which is the most important thing I suppose.
Unfortunately the extent of my influence is writing a letter to the Minister and my local member, which I have done, and trying to share some of the facts and details around.
There are quite a few campaigns up and running and industry (internet service providers) are firmly against the idea so I have some hope the Government will see reason.
Abbot is getting slaughtered by Emerson over the fact that Turnbull’s gone backwards in the polls.
close,but no cigar
basically “intelligent” applications that allow terrabytes to be crunched in a short time,they ultimately lead to the creation of a “database” that can be inetelligently examined (slice and dice) as opposed to “data mining” which is just data extraction in a set format.
OMG. I think I just had a techno- generational spyder short circuit my entire understanding of politics. Shows On, a tutorial is required for the WWW challenged.
He is isn’t he. His heart just isn’t in it.
Pages: « 1 … 3 4 [5] 6 7 … 14 » Show All