Page 4 of 6
Re: Great Barrier Firewall?
Posted: 21 Jan 2009, 15:52
by Johnnyrico
thanks for the thread combine cartymew ^^
Re: Great Barrier Firewall?
Posted: 21 Jan 2009, 15:54
by Cartollomew
Johnnyrico wrote:thanks for the thread combine cartymew ^^
No worries, just glad people are finally realising what a spectacularly poor piece of legislation we're about to inherit.
...now if I could only figure out how to rename merged threads...
Re: Great Barrier Firewall?
Posted: 21 Jan 2009, 16:09
by Lellybaby
Porn causes exercise
Exercise creates Endorphins
Endorphins make you happy
Happy people just don't kill their husbands
Re: Great Barrier Firewall?
Posted: 21 Jan 2009, 22:19
by Mitra
cart.... can't you just edit the first post.....
Re: Great Barrier Firewall?
Posted: 22 Jan 2009, 01:04
by Cartollomew
Mitra wrote:cart.... can't you just edit the first post.....
/shrug. Go ahead and try it.
Re: Great Barrier Firewall?
Posted: 22 Jan 2009, 01:11
by Mitra
Cartollomew wrote:Mitra wrote:cart.... can't you just edit the first post.....
/shrug. Go ahead and try it.
damn...shit...that's whack.
Re: Great Barrier Firewall?
Posted: 22 Jan 2009, 11:16
by Karjalan
Jacinta wrote:Porn causes exercise
Exercise creates Endorphins
Endorphins make you happy
Happy people just don't kill their husbands
That's fucking pro logic. I love it
Re: Great Barrier Firewall?
Posted: 22 Jan 2009, 11:19
by Johnnyrico
i think ive seen that on a tshirt before, lawl
Re: Great Barrier Firewall?
Posted: 22 Jan 2009, 11:31
by Cartollomew
From the xkcd forums (and way off topic):
1) Babies are illogical
2) Nobody is despised who can manage a velociraptor.
3) Illogical persons are despised.
Therefore, babies cannot manage velociraptors.
Re: Great Barrier Firewall?
Posted: 16 Mar 2009, 15:17
by Cartollomew
http://www.theherald.com.au/news/local/ ... 58973.aspx
Hooray for precedent!
Truly, Australia does have the most stupid.
This is fucking retarded. I'm moving to South Korea.
Re: Great Barrier Firewall?
Posted: 16 Mar 2009, 15:34
by Dropdeadqt
Yeah, pretty bullshit really. There is a lot you could say about it both ways. On one hand you have the fact that they are portrayed as being ... 8? is it. Sure that makes them children, but at the same time they are not real. If something that is not real is now considered to be real from the point of prosecution, you suddenly have to be so careful about what you do and what you say...
If I make a character and say she is 18, does that make it legal? What if she has the body of an 8 year old? Is it legal now? I mean she is 18, I said she is and she is my character. How is that any different from the Simpsons? Given the fact the show has existed for ... what, 19 years? surely they are at least 18 now? I've never heard of anyone never growing up (unless you include Peter and the lost boys and hot damn wendy, she is like 10 going on 80 now...).
They really need to make a distinction of reality from fiction cause this is just crossing the line.
Christ never heard of so much stupid shit before ~_~. Oh well, that's Australia for you.
Re: Great Barrier Firewall?
Posted: 16 Mar 2009, 15:40
by midi
Oh yes, that was epic when I first read of the charges a while back. I think the best comment I saw was "does this mean I can legally use a cut out to use the transit lane?"
Seriously though, why the hell are they pursuing such cases. Guess anything that "saves the children" is good in the governments eyes, sigh.
Re: Great Barrier Firewall?
Posted: 17 Mar 2009, 07:27
by Karjalan
When morality goes too far.
It's true, in actual years... the simpsons characters are over 20 ish... how the fuck can you determine that they are childeren.... Also the fact that most likely the people drawing the extra body parts on the characters is most likely NOT the creater, if anything they should be charging them with plagerism >.<
I'm surprised at how quickly things ar becoming a police state (theres a similar thing going on in NZ)
Re: Great Barrier Firewall?
Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 16:19
by Xact
List of banned websites thanks to wikileaks.org
Slashdot.org wrote:"Australia's secretive Internet filter blacklist held by its communications watchdog has been leaked, revealing the government has understated the amount of banned Web pages by more than 1000. Multiple legitimate businesses and Web sites have been banned including two bus companies, online poker sites, multiple Wikipedia entries, Google and Yahoo group pages, a dental surgery and a tour operator. Betfair, a billion-dollar business blocked by the blacklist, CEO Andrew Twaits was furious the government has potentially annexed tens of millions of dollars in revenue after its Betfair.com gambling site was blacklisted. The blacklists were reportedly leaked by a Web filter operator to wikileaks which has published the full list of banned URLs. Outraged privacy advocates say the government has effectively lied about the amount of URLs included in the blacklists, totalling more than 2300, and the type of content which it would ban. The leak follows a series attacks on the watchdog in which irate users successfully lobbied for web sites to be banned, only to be threatened with an $11,000 fine for publishing the link contained in the PR response. It was also revealed the watchdog can ban Web sites at a whim, with no accountability."
Also front page of OCAU
OCAU wrote:There's been quite an interesting turn of events in the now explosively-growing net censorship story. Wikileaks, who published the list that the ACMA assure us is NOT their list, have responded to suggestions from ACMA that the Australian Federal Police may become involved.
Also from 2 replies on Slashdot from Muzzy:
Muzzy wrote:Not a hoax. I've confirmed it myself by ripping websites_ACMA.txt out of Integard filtering software. Even if it's not identical to ACMA's own list, it damn well is identical to Integard's version of ACMA's list.
The list is real.
Muzzy wrote:Also, the list (although a month older than one on Wikileaks) can be obtained from Integard filter software. Hex edit the integard.exe and change first occurence of "datetimepicker.js" to websites_ACMA.txt, then login to integard's webUI and request that file. Apparently there's a whitelist of files the webUI server can give to the user. I've confirmed myself that the lolcats URL is indeed in that ACMA file from the filter software...
Interesting turn of events, this is gonna get heated veryyyy soon.
Re: Great Barrier Firewall?
Posted: 20 Mar 2009, 16:22
by Lellybaby
Whats funny is, i see none of this published in television or newspaper media here in Brisbane.
If you guys hadn't posted about it i'd think nothing was wrong.