Giggity

Yet another stupid Howard government decision that will hopefully bite the dust. Good.

Although I should probably say the current government's plans to do ISP-level filtering are equally as stupid...

Cough.

Abby Winters.

Cough.

What's the filter to keep young Aussies from making porn?

Tom Wood, the "Porn Cracker."

That needs to be made into a Mento's type commercial.

...And for this, we Australians say "sorry".

So does it filter the porn out, or everything else out? Because I'm getting kind of sick of all these words on the 'net.

$85 million is the new $85 thousand.

mmmmm...kangaroo sex

From what I remember hearing, their ISP selection and broadband availability/prices are way more effective in keeping people from browsing porn.

Im fairly certain that if we removed porn from the internet, it would cease to exist.

After 12 months, 29,000 of an expected 2,500,000 filters are in use? If only there was some imagery that would graphically represent such a catastrophic mismatch between intent and outcome ...

All of human history has demonstrated that teenagers are horny. They are going to think about sex, and they are going to have sex. Any attempt to stop them from doing either of those things will fail. We should instead devote our efforts to get them to approach sex at least halfway intelligently so that they won't hurt themselves physically, emotionally, or financially.

As the Boobies up above makes clear, these farking filters are nothing but a bunch of coont stuffed shiat farkers.

I thought you people elected a new guy! Why are you still having problems? Hell, I'm American and I liked the sound of the new guy.. I can't remember his name at the moment but that's becuase I'm horrible with names, not becuase I don't have a high opinion of him.

Oh well, I guess progress comes slowly in the face of puritanical mentalities.

And once again the government just assumes it knows what people want and spends $$$$'s to find out it's wrong.

Don't all Australians walk around naked in the Outback, put mud on their faces, and have large, pendulous breasts ?

Gothmolly: Don't all Australians walk around naked in the Outback, put mud on their faces, and have large, pendulous breasts ?

The men do. Watch Crocodile Dundee.

Here's a crazy idea.

Tell parents to protect their own kids from content they feel is inappropriate.

I'm sure the scheme could be implemented immediately with an estimated cost of lets see... *tapping on caclulator* $0 dollars per household.

reverse filterpwn3d!

What's with Nanny State junior? 85 mill on a complete cluster fark? Wow, and I was pissed at canada's gun registry debacle.

shocked... SHOCKED!

The filters, they do nothing!

/Y'aint porn surfed until you done Aussie Rules porn surfing

Cough cough repeat cough.

I said this the last time this subject err... came up.

All we need to to solve any problem is to put porn on the far side of the solution.

Wantnooclear fusion? Set up a lapdance orgy for physicists if they solve the problem.

World peace? Line up hookers for every member of the UN General Assembly and this is all yours, *IF*.

Actually, that probably wouldn't work. I'm pretty sure everyone in the UN has a mistress. But the fusion thing might work!

LGeezer: After 12 months, 29,000 of an expected 2,500,000 filters are in use? If only there was some imagery that would graphically represent such a catastrophic mismatch between intent and outcome ...

That's likely the greatest FAIL pic in existence. Kudos.

2.5 million was never remotely realistic. Since there are only about 2.5 households with children in Australia and internet penetration is about 64%, there should be at most 1.6 million homes with both internet connections and children. Factor in the number of children too young to use the internet and the number of people who would not even consider having extra government software on their computer and the projected 2.5 million becomes absurd.

QFT: "Proper supervision should be front and centre of any efforts to protect children from inappropriate material on the internet; supported by additional tools such as content filters, not some mandatory and ill-conceived 'clean feed' measure by a government that believes only it has the authority to decide what's appropriate or inappropriate content for computer users."

/Government FAILS once again.

muchomaas: As the Boobies up above makes clear, these farking filters are nothing but a bunch of coont stuffed shiat farkers.

Two thumbs up, one for the post and one for the Pynchon monicker.

aCiD99: LGeezer: After 12 months, 29,000 of an expected 2,500,000 filters are in use? If only there was some imagery that would graphically represent such a catastrophic mismatch between intent and outcome ...

That's likely the greatest FAIL pic in existence. Kudos.

I like the one with the hurdle runner better.

Wow $2931.03 for a piece of software that does one job, poorly. Sounds like the US government had something to do with this.

FTA: It was expected 2.5 million households would take up the free porn-blocking filters within 12 months but only 144,088 filter products have been downloaded or ordered on CD-ROM since August last year.

So this is apparently the reason the Oz Gummint has decided the software is a failure: "Less families adopted this `technology` than we had anticipated."

I think this approach to rating the software is... mistaken.

Here in lies the problem:
"NetAlert is a program which is relatively new, as is the minister in his role, and I'm sure he would like a little more than six months or so before the public decide if he has been a failure or not," he said.
Success or failure on the internet is measured in days, dumbass.

I hope these idiots take a long, hard look on themselves.

poorjon: All of human history has demonstrated that teenagers are horny. They are going to think about sex, and they are going to have sex. Any attempt to stop them from doing either of those things will fail. We should instead devote our efforts to get them to approach sex at least halfway intelligently so that they won't hurt themselves physically, emotionally, or financially.

They don't make a THIS big enough for that paragraph.

baka-san [TotalFark] Quote 2008-02-16 05:29:17 PM
No, cannot be, teens don't think about sex unless media shoves it down their throat.

Nice !!
///Giggity

Is it really that surPRising that the kids have fOund a workaround to get their seXY pictures?

CygnusDarius: I hope these idiots take a long, hard look on at themselves boobies.

FTFY

.

Well, that's one stupid scheme designed to throttle Australia's nascent internet industry down, two to go:
New government proposes disconnecting filesharers after three infringements. (new window)
New government proposes mandatory porn-filter on all ISP's. (new window)



Australia needs a strong internet industry. It needs good communication technology. It needs to develop its science and high-technology sectors.

Measures like this will only throttle the broadband industry by forcing them to implement useless filters, and by driving away customers.
These measures will have the effect of hampering science and technology, while driving more money and power to the greedy lawyers that run the music "industry".

leperboy69: Although I should probably say the current government's plans to do ISP-level filtering are equally as stupid...

In fact it's much, much worse because it will hurt everyone's internet connection, not just the ones of lazy parents.

The single best "internet filter" you could ever hope to have is putting the computer in a room without a door, with the screen facing outwards.

Bucky Katt: zenmouse: Im fairly certain that if we removed porn from the internet, it would cease to exist.

the lol cat sites would survive

Good point. And the 10% of Fark that isn't considered porn.

When? When! Will people stop trying to get technology to raise there kids.