Australia Wants to Regulate Internet Streaming 257
Paul writes "After an incident that occurred on a popular television show's internet stream, the Australian government has once again demonstrated that it simply does not understand the internet by indicating that they intend to regulate streaming video. I wonder what these geniuses plan on doing with porn streamed from Europe?"
Now I know... (Score:5, Funny)
For those who are confused... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:For those who are confused... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:For those who are confused... (Score:4, Informative)
All those cameras and there is still not much evidence tells me it was just a bunch of young adults just having fun, until BB decided to be a party pooper. Lets have a realaity check here, if the girl was in any serious danger BB would have had security in their in an instant.
Re:For those who are confused... (Score:3, Informative)
Whether or not a crime has been committed is up to the victim. It's important to remember that.
Re:For those who are confused... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not to mention all the rape victims that get tricked into believing they really did deserve it, after all they were leading him on and wearing such a short skirt..
Then theres also plenty of statutory laws, which while you or I may disagree with them, they're still illegal.
Re:For those who are confused... (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, over a prolonged period of time. That is, when the victim is being held captive for days or weeks. Did they hold her for days? No. It seems that they held her for few minutes at most.
Re:For those who are confused... (Score:3, Insightful)
Wherever you've got that idea from, it's WRONG! The whole idea of having a system of laws to govern your country, is that it should be possible to know in advance about what is legal or not. Ideally these laws should also to some degree be the same that the majority of people think is "right".
If a crime has been committed anytime some "victim" claims to have become a "victim of a crime", it would be pretty har
Re:For those who are confused... (Score:2)
Its unavoidable that someone make a 'size' joke out of that. So I just did, without actually making one.
Re:For those who are confused, its a turkey slap (Score:5, Informative)
Re:For those who are confused, its a turkey slap (Score:4, Insightful)
What is the issue? The girl knew what she was getting into when she climbed into the bed. She did not seem particularly surprised or offended by the events. I do not know what type of parties the majority of slashdotters attend but this seems like harmless banter. Now, if she objected or expressed discomfort with what was happening, the situation might be different, but these are consenting adults.
As to government restrictions on internet broadcasts, let them try. There will always be a way for the truly dedicated to find the information they are looking for.
Re:For those who are confused, its a turkey slap (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:For those who are confused... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:For those who are confused... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is a TV show and there is a lot of bullshit and manipulation through the way it is broadcast. However, these people do live their lives in there and form relationships that are probably stronger than one can imagine watching 10 minute blurbs of footage each day.
The politicians are just proving that it is not the TV show, but rather themselves who deserve the title Big Brother!
Re:For those who are confused... (Score:2)
Re:For those who are confused... (Score:2)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,2086
This is a beatup by a right-wing government. Get your facts straight.
Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I vote for The Greens.
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2, Offtopic)
Considering Bob Brown's starve-in-the-dark economic policy and Mark Latham's post-election meltdown, John Howard was the least worst of the choices offered to us.
On the topic at hand, never mind the porn, can't we ban Big Brother for being offensively stupid?
...
What am I thinking? We'd have to ban three quarters of all human activity.
...
No, that would not be a good thing!
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:3, Interesting)
Stop treating "the economy" as though it is something sacred that mustn't be trampled on. It is just one aspect of our society, and not really the most important one, despite the fact that people treat it like it is.
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
> little bit for the community (people) to be better off.
The economy is all of us - not just 'business'. When you hurt business the ocmmunity suffers.
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the defense that capitalists always turn to, yes. But the simply fact is that businesses will only ever pay workers as little as they can possibly get away with. When the economy is going strongly, they take all the profits - wages do not rise - and they certainly won't rise now with Work Choices ( Business Choices ). But when the economy is going badly, businesses us this as an excuse to decimate wages a
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets ban stuff because christian fundamentalist tools don't know what an 'off' button is and believe the entire population is dumb for not believing them! Next some other group will want something else taken off because they also believe the entire population is dumb for not believing them!
Yes, its smut, but if you don't like it, don't watch it and let the networks decide when the lack of ad revenue doesn't justify another reality tv iteration.
SBS should really rush the two South Park Cartoon Wars episodes on air...
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
Calling someone a "christian fundamentalist fool" and misspelling the word "fool": priceless.
No it isn't :(. Naked reality TV would be a nice idea. Don't vote people out, vote that they have to lose clothes. If they're allready naked, have them perform sexual acts. Simply let them use a pseudonym and a facial mask (or just pixelatio
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
I think you need to consult with your dictionary about the secondary meaning (especially the more vulgar ones) of the word "tool".
Here's a link for you:
www.websters.com
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
Fool is a good word in his context, but "tool" is just as good - as in "someone who is used". I believe he's implying there are a bunch of numb-minded christian fundamentalists who are being used as tools of their leadership.
That's what god tells me, anyway. An angel read it to me off some pretty golden plates.
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
True, up to a point. However, the sad fact is (at least in UK, I imagine it is the same everywhere) that all you are given to watch on tv is crap like 'reality' TV, sports events, celebrity chefs and makeover programs; so it becomes a question of not having a tv or enjoying this brainless shite by the cubic meter. How I miss the days when tv was at times well made and intelligent.
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:3, Insightful)
They know precisely what an 'off' button is...and they want to make damn sure yours gets pushed when they want it pushed.
rj
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:4, Insightful)
That's an assisine comment. There's a world of difference between a sensible, substainable economy, and one that consumes all resources as fast as possible for the biggest short-term profits. The Greens argue for a sustainable economy. There's no sane person left on the planet who claims that our current resource usage is sustainable. It's just that mainstream political parties have no interest in doing anything about it.
It was hardly a meltdown. He let of some steam, that's for sure. If I were him, I would have felt the same way. Labor castritates his policies and threw the election to the Liberals so they could continue to play to the conservative factions ( inside and out ) Latham would have actually been a leader, whereas Howard is simply following the US ruling class all the way to hell. But on the topic of meltdowns, I seem to remember a certain prominent Liberal politician attempting suicide ( and failing ). Now that was a meltdown. Latham was just venting.
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
Perhaps not, but there are very sane people who say that it's not relevent: Since necessity is the mother of invention, some enterprising person(s) will solve the problems (at a profit, no less) when it's necessary to solve them.
For example: we're running out of oil, but we need oil to run our cars and factories and such.
Solution: There are already people 'manufacturing' oil in a variety of ways, includi
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:4, Informative)
Ok i am not an electoral expert but with our preferential system it is very possible to have a *party* that less than half voted for as a first preference. Only because we *have* to put them down somewhere did they end up with more than half the votes. (ie on my card i probably put the major parties last and second last - 8 and 9 if i remember-, who i really wanted doesnt really matter)
On a second note, noone actually voted for John Howard. He is a figure head of the party we voted for. The PM is not elected like the president of the USA, but by his mates in the party, once again on a similar system that could have a person that is not half of everyones 1st choice (and is corrupted by being an open system with lots of deals being made).
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, the commonwealth countries such as Australia, Canada, and the UK are not that democratic on paper compared with the US. I mean England still has a queen and a monarchy. However, it seems that their participants although by no means angels play a pretty fair game. For example, here
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
Did you read the story? It's not talking about anything other than a review and of the three political forces quoted in the story the government is the most reasonable.
> Originally our Prime Minister wanted the broadcaster to take the whole show off the air.
Well - yes - but he said was that he dislikes the government telling the business community what to do. He suggested that there's a place for self-regulation and that ch
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
We are not gonna tell you what to do at all! but now we are talking anyway, you did this and this, and we regard that as prime example of you failing to self regulate.. FIX IT
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
> anyway, you did this and this, and we regard that as prime example of
> you failing to self regulate.. FIX IT!
Yeah - fair enough.
> Makes me wonder, did you copy/paste that post? it sounds a lot like
> the typical political misdirection,
The quote was paraphrased from what I saw on lateline earlier this week. Or do you mean the whole post? Er? I wrote the post and paraphrased the bit featuring what Howard said. I thnk it is re
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
Well, I meant the entire post. But you made cle
Re:Can anyone say "knee jerk" (Score:2)
I was absolutely floored when, after the incident occured, suddently everyone is talking about reviewing TV ratings.
IT WAS NEVER ON THE FSCKING TV!!!!!!!
Pieces of the incident were aired on TV during subsequent news programs, but only to illustrate something that was available for viewing on the internet. And really, compared to the footage they've been showing from Iraq and Indonesia lately during prime time news, the incident i
Better information (Score:5, Informative)
what you say? (Score:4, Insightful)
We'll regulate that too, damnit!
(in jest, however - sadly, it appears that's probably what they'll propose if previous internet related legislation is anything to go by).
Re:what you say? (Score:4, Funny)
The sad thing is, pandering to the conservative right like that might just help him. God I wish there was an opposition worth voting for. I'm not asking for much, just some people who, you know, present alternative ideas, and have a clue. Oh, sorry, I forgot these guys are career politicians for a second, ignore me.
Re:what you say? (Score:2, Funny)
Obvious (Score:5, Funny)
Whacking it like they're 12 again?
Re:Obvious (Score:2)
Hopefully their ability to enjoy sex hasn't been going downhill since 12
porn streamed from Europe? (Score:5, Funny)
Trust me, there's a lot more porn coming from the US.
Not that i'll know it
Re:porn streamed from Europe? (Score:2)
*sigh* That's what happens when you have a conservative, religiously-leaning government with aspirations to become something like the current US government.
That's s a 'hard-one'... (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe watch it after the wife goes to bed!
Re:That's s a 'hard-one'... (Score:2)
Its funny. Our capital city Canberra is notoriously boring. At one point my wife and I had to go there to renew her malaysian passport, so we flew to Canberra on the sunday intending to take in the museums first and do the passport thing on the monday.
We got a room in a hotel in the CBD. The funny bit was a sign above the reception desk: Due to problems with previous groups we do not accept bookings from Canberra residents. I can't imagine what they were up to but I was a bit pissed about not knowing about
Poor summary of the situation (Score:5, Informative)
This is a poor summary of the situation. It's clear from the article that the government's intention is the review regualtion, not necessarily (as the poster snidely suggests) to impose regulation on porn streamed from Europe. The outcome of such a review could reasonably be that material streamed from within Australia should meet certain guidelines. While this doesn't prevent trash coming from overseas sources, it does ensure that broadcasts where responsiibility lies within Australia meets certain standards. This is typically what governments seek to do, and would lead towards consistency with other broadcasting formats for shows which have a large, youthful viewership such as Big Brother.
About eight years ago the government did show naivity on internet regulation by passing measures that were unworkable and which were panned within the IT community and within sections of the Liberal party itself. However, the current minister has cleaned things up a lot. Her approach to internet regulation has been to encourage education of parents and availability of client-side filtering - which is exactly the approach that I'd expect most of the slashdot readership would endorse.
Notice that of all the players with something to say in this article the government is the most restrained - calling for a review but not going overboard with censorship demands. In fact, it has been the federal opposition in recent times which has called for ridiculous measures while the government has been realistic in its approach, even by the reasonable (but in earlier times typically conflicting) standards of Electronic Frontiers Australia. See http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/mandatorybloc
Slashdot editors - panning Australians for our bad internet regulation system may once have been fitting. However, it would be nice if you could review things a bit more carefully based on the evidence rather than knee-jerks to posts making grand claims about Australian policy. It's annoying to see my country being portrayed as stoneage based on bad evidence. This snide post is not a story and it shouldn't have been put through.
Re:Poor summary of the situation (Score:4, Informative)
We have broadcast standards for TV stations and radio, same as in the US. In Australia, our standards are much more relaxed. We don't need to sensor out anywhere near as much nudity or bad language from free to air broadcasts.
People moaned to the regulator about a TV STATION braodcasting a "LIVE Sexual Assult" on the internet. So people complained that this was a breach of the television code of conduct.
The regulator reviewed the incident and said no breach occured because it was an internet broadcast, and the footage was not aired on TV. They then went on to say that the legislation should be reviewed in light of changing technology.
This would suggest that "Licensed" broadcasters may have to uphold the same standards on the web as they do on FTA TV, which oddly enough is a logical bow to draw.
It does NOT mean they try and apply that regulation on the rest of the worlds content coming into Australia.
Re:Poor summary of the situation (Score:2)
Holy Fuck it is not logical.
Since when do internet broadcasters need to be licensed and for GOD'S SAKE WHY?
Re:Poor summary of the situation (Score:2)
parts of a show they could never get away with on free to air TV.
It is their attempts to bypass normal programming standards that our gov is looking at.
Re:Poor summary of the situation (Score:2)
Do you mean the entire show? We are speaking about "Big Cretin" here after all.
No normal person in his sane mind will watch that tripe.
Re:Poor summary of the situation (Score:2)
Well the program does target teenagers.
*ducks*
Re:Poor summary of the situation (Score:4, Informative)
The Liberals (just a name, they're not really liberal) know they're going to need the Family First's (Australia's fundamentalist political party) support over the next few years. This sort of posturing is their way of pandering to the religious nuts without actually changing anything. In reality, the Libs are pretty much owned by the big media outlets and won't be doing anything to annoy them - as evidenced by their response to attempted media reform.- whittled-down-to-a-runt/2006/06/29/1151174330032.h tml [smh.com.au]
http://www.smh.com.au/news/business/media-reforms
Re:Poor summary of the situation (Score:3, Informative)
I can't think of a situation where a name of an elected political outfit is fitting. In this case, the federal government coalition is a 'catch-all' grouping and and thus don't have a pure defining philosophy. However, the Liberal Party is economically liberal - much more so than self-proclaimed Liberal parties in most other countries, and while the majority of members are not generally socially liberal there are some who are.
> know they're going
Re:Poor summary of the situation (Score:3, Informative)
Depends on whether you use American or European terminology.
Historically Americans focused on social policy and Europeans focused on economic policy.
Traditionally right wing governments tend to have strict social policies and free market policies while left wing governments have loose social policies and interventionalist market policies.
So in an economic sense right wing governments are liberal (let the corporations do whatever they like and leave
You're new round these parts, aren't you? (Score:2)
Re:Poor summary of the situation (Score:2)
Lets just start with saying that Big Brother as a program does not at all cater to viewers hoping to get a glimpse of something naughty happening...
At any rate, how nice that the Ausie government doesn't go overboard with censorship demands just yet.. Previous attempts and current comments give some reason however to believe that th
20 million people elected the wrong leaders. (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:20 million people elected the wrong leaders. (Score:2, Informative)
we have first past the post electoral system here, that's been gerrymandered pretty well.
So really only 5mil of those people elected the wrong leader.
The rest are too young, shuffled into strangely shaped electorates, or just voted down the page.
Re:20 million people elected the wrong leaders. (Score:2)
No we don't. I should also point out that Australia is a democracy, and of those voting there are of course people who didn't vote for the government.
Re:20 million people elected the wrong leaders. (Score:3, Informative)
Preferential voting in the lower house. First past the post is where the person with the most number of votes (even if less than 50%) wins. And it's different again in the upper house.
Re:20 million people elected the wrong leaders. (Score:3, Informative)
The Commonwealth House of Representatives (Lower House) uses Preferential Voting, with full transfer of preferences.
The Commonwealth Senate (Upper House) uses Proportional Representation (Single Transferable Vote), with group ticket voting ("above-the-line" voting.)
See page 24 of this document [aec.gov.au] for the systems used for state elections.
Re:20 million people elected the wrong leaders. (Score:2)
We elected the right leader, its just there wasn't a huge range to pick from.
Re:20 million people elected the wrong leaders. (Score:2)
Hmm.. being the least of 2 evils doesn't make one good.
I think people are slightly missing the point (Score:2)
Now I dont know if Big Brother in Oz is stre
Re:I think people are slightly missing the point (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there's a big difference between internet and TV.
At least in the US, the reasoning goes that the government is entitled to regulate the content of TV broadcasts because the airwaves belong to the public. The amount of spectrum available for broadcasting is limited, and since the people are allowing private entities to use that limited resource, they (through their representatives) have the right to decide how it may be used. Cable TV doesn't use public resources, so it can't be censored except under the same laws that could be used to censor books or magazines (obscenity, copyright, national security, etc.).
The internet works differently. As we all know, it's a series of TUBES, and those tubes belong to private entities. Furthermore, unlike broadcasts, which are pushed invisibly from a transmitter through the air in your home (and which are passing through your body right this second!), internet streams are delivered only to those who request them. Whether or not you have to pay for the stream is irrelevant; either way, it isn't forcing itself upon anyone. It's like comparing a mass mailing to a box of pamphlets which you can take if you're interested: it'd be silly to complain about the content of the pamphlet when you made the decision to seek it out.
Finally, the kneejerk "protect the children" principle never has any weight, because there's no evidence whatsoever that children need to be "protected" from content like this. It's an argument based on gut feelings rather than fact.
Re:I think people are slightly missing the point (Score:2)
Neither is a television broadcast, one still has to purchase the correct equipment, tune the television to that channel (in order to receive it) and then still choose to watch that particular channel. IMHO from the perspective of broadcasting that is basically no different to an internet stream, there are technical differences (the many different tubes) but that doesn't really matter.
Dont forget that Big Brother is a television show that is *also* b
Re:I think people are slightly missing the point (Score:2)
I disagree. A TV is only capable of receiving a finite number of
Re:I think people are slightly missing the point (Score:2)
Television is sent over the air, and can reach you, WITHOUT explicit request. This makes the medium "broadcast". The PUBLIC owns the airwaves (frequencies), and thus governmental (public) regulation can be applied. This was done by government granted monopoly because the frequencies are consider
Re:I think people are slightly missing the point (Score:2)
Both true.
and then still choose to watch that particular channel.
People get disturbed by 'stumbling' upon it, even if they decide to switch away.
IMHO from the perspective of broadcasting that is basically no different to an internet stream, there are technical differences (the many different tubes) but that doesn't really matter.
There is a rather significant differe
Re:I think people are slightly missing the point (Score:2)
We're not so different, he and I. We get it. We're not brainiacs on the nerd patrol. We're not members of the factinista. We go straight from the gut, right sir? That's where the truth lies, right down here in the gut. Do you know you have more nerve endings in your gut than you
Broadcast license (Score:4, Insightful)
If you don't have a broadcast license you should be able to do whatever you want with your webcam. Television has a lot of power. Setting up a webcam in my kitchen isn't going to draw hundreds of thousands of viewers, but when a TV station comes along and does it, with all the promotion and hoo-ha that goes with it, then people will watch it. Their web broadcast should be covered by the same standards as their TV broadcasts.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Good Stuff (Score:3, Funny)
The same thing any good regulator would do, keep the good stuff & send the rest through.
Submitter Doesn't Understand (Score:5, Informative)
The government is just trying to stop the TV stations from exploiting loopholes in the legislation. Capital 10 (one of the Big Five stations in Australia) broadcast some sexually explicit material live through their website. Apparently that's legal because it wasn't broadcast over the television band. The government reckons that's a copout and I agree.
Now bear in mind that Australia has some very relaxed rules for sexual content on TV. The stations are allowed to broadcast sexual intercourse, full frontal nudity, and even fetishes. One of the stations SBS is sometimes called "Sex Before Soccer" because they'd frequently schedule something blue from Europe before the live soccer broadcasts. The stations just have to show that content at certain times and put an appropriate disclaimer at the start of the show. There is censorship but it's very mild (eg, no penetration unless it's educational).
In this case, Capital 10 stepped over the line and was enabling children to view filthy content via the Internet. The dominant audience for Big Brother is the 12-14 year old teen market. Do you think it's appropriate for young teens to see a bunch of dimwitted Big Brother contestants teabagging a female contestant who was being held down against her will? I don't.
I think the government is doing the right thing here. Personally I wish they'd say "we're backdating this new legislation and slapping you with a big fine for being jerks". I'd support any bending of the law necessary to force Big Brother off the airwaves.
Re:Submitter Doesn't Understand (Score:2)
Re:Submitter Doesn't Understand (Score:2)
So put in a delay loop, like most talkback radio does, so someone can hit the kill switch before something nasty goes to air.
Re:Submitter Doesn't Understand (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Submitter Doesn't Understand (Score:2)
Also this is no where near as bad as some of the other things that have been screened on the late night television show "Big brother - adults only"
Make no mistake - this is channel 10 using the free publicity for ratings while at the same time destroying the life of 2 young men.
Re:Submitter Doesn't Understand (Score:2)
If the clips linked from other posts are all that happened, without a written descripotion you couldn't tell what happened. You see more filth
Re:Submitter Doesn't Understand (Score:2)
If your 12-14 year old kids are watching live Internet streaming at 4:30 a.m. (which, for everyone else, is the time that this was streamed), you
Incomplete summary (Score:4, Funny)
Same thing ... (Score:3, Informative)
People try and fit things they do not understand into things they do. We all do it, many times with things called "analogies". I know some of the better description I had of networking revolved around analogies to roads - I had enough knowledge to know where those analogies failed. In this case regulation has always worked - why not now? After all it's just broadcasting and lines within thier control.
Unless you can frame it how they understand it (and in a way they care about, for example if cost is irrelevant then saying it's cheaper will persuade none) you are wasting breath/bandwidth/time.
This will continue to happen for some time. As the population that is comfortable with current technology comes into power it will recede. But then, there were be something new out there that gets the same treatment. It always has and it always will.
It's a fact of life. If you want to affect change you have to accept it and work within those strictures (that doesn't mean not try and change it, just accept it happens and work from there).
Accept what you can not change, strive to change what you can.
What really should have happened (Score:2, Insightful)
What else can they do (Score:3, Funny)
Capture, catalog, and burn "best of" CDs, of course.
Why let logic hold you back? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Cry baby (Score:3, Insightful)
Huh? She had a penis shoved in her face, complained about it, only wanted an apology, didn't press charges, and then other people want streaming video to be regulated. How does this make her a "crazy bitch" who "didn't get her way" and is "sucking her thumb and stamping her feet"? I'd say she's dealt with those idiots in a appropriate way. Pity you seem to have stooped to their level.
Re:Cry baby (Score:4, Informative)
There was no complaint made by the female housemate in question. Whether or not it was acceptable or not we do not know (that's between the housemates themselves).
However, the "crazy bitch" in question is not the housemate who was "assaulted" (she claims it was all in fun - big brother stepped in without her complaining) - i believe the GP post is referring to our Communications minister, Helen Coonan... she "didn't get her way" in "getting the show off the air"...
Re:Cry baby (Score:2)
Well, I heard an excerpt on the radio where she wasn't entirely impressed with their actions but didn't want to make anything official.
However, the "crazy bitch" in question is not the housemate who was "assaulted" (she claims it was all in fun - big brother stepped in without her complaining) - i believe the GP post is referring to our Commun
Re:Cry baby (Score:3, Insightful)
From the transcript, she was quite aware that it was very likely she was going to be "turkey slapped" and made no fuss for them to stop - she shut her eyes and went along with it (laughing at the time).
Certainl
Re:Cry baby (Score:2)
Re:porn streamed from Europe (Score:5, Funny)
That's what I was thinking. Hire some people to carefully watch every European porn flick, so they can properly rate it. As an European, and thus familiar with said movies and the culture that created them, I'd like to offer my services and expertise to the Australian government for a small consulting fee. All in the interest of the public good and protecting the children from smut, you understand
Too many fucks in Linux... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Uh... (Score:3, Insightful)