August 9, 2010
The fire represents the excitement, of which there is none in this election
Since everyone else is writing about the election I thought I might as well throw together a quick summary for all those who are not at all interested.
This election is shaping up to be the least inspiring display of political ineptitude ever experienced. Honestly, I have seen potatoes more erudite and interesting than either potential PM. Not only this, but there is very little debate happening because the two parties are in agreement on their primary policies, simply trying to win by one-upping each other around a series of issues that are not actually important.
Here is a list of what both Labor and Liberal have spoken about thus far:
They hate boats
They don’t like gays
They want us to pay less tax (don’t they always)
They hate each other
Nobody like K-Rudd (poor fella)
You could probably go read some more thought out analysis at sites where people actually care, but its easier to watch the two clips below since they basically summarise the last month of campaigning.
Every single ad/debate/other announcement by either party
Our election options
Couldn’t embed so click here
July 24, 2009
I had always believed that the print edition of the Yellow Pages was like taxes, something that is inevitable and annoying. But fortunately “Steve” from Sensis posted the number to request a cancellation in the comments section of this mumbrella article.
I have nothing against Yellow Pages per se, I like their website and think it is a great tool for finding local businesses. I just feel it is wasteful for so many of the print edition to be made and go to waste.
So if, like me, you already have enough Yellow Pages editions at home to use as a step ladder in the kitchen or rest your computer monitor on, then call 1800 810 211 and request that they stop sending you those wasteful books.
*UPDATE* Serveral people have told me that they have called and been told that they cannot cancel their deliveries. I am looking into this and hope to post more information as it comes to me.
April 24, 2009
Its finally happened…
They’ve gone and done the worst thing anyone, anywhere could EVER do!
KFC have discontinued the Tower Burger…
Now don’t worry I’m not going to fly off the rail and take out a bus load of children, however I do predict a backlash of epic proportions in the wake of this dreadful decisions. Below is an image of the caos I envisage:
This is what happens when people dont get their Tower burgers – Pic credit to ABC.net.au
BRING BACK THE TOWER!!!
December 11, 2008
Today there was an article on the Sydney Morning Herald about a man (Chris Illingworth) who has been charged for posting a video to Liveleak that has been deemed (somewhat extremely) to be of child abuse. The video contains a father swinging his child around by its arms (note: I have not actually watched the video). The video had already been on YouTube and there for the man was not opening any new windows.
He is being charged for ‘publishing child abuse material’ and the anti-pedophile squad Task Force Argos is arguing that as he ‘published’ the material to the site, he was actively and knowingly spreading this ‘child abuse material’. The question this charge raises, in particular if it sticks is where does the line get drawn?
To break it down lets run through a few scenarios -
1) James finds a video of a child falling down a ditch and the parent on the film laughs before helping the child. This, to James, is funny and sounds like a video that would be on Australia’s Funniest Home Video (Yuck). So James being a fucking idiot who think this kind of crap is humorous, posts the video to Liveleak. Unknown to him someone in the government has also seen this video and decided it is illegal material, there is no possible way for James to know this as he found it on a public site while using a work computer which filters adult material- According to the current charges this is ‘Publishing Child Abuse Material’
2) Same situation but instead of uploading the video to Liveleak James merely hyperlinks to the video in a twitter post/blog post. – Applying the same twisted theory does this mean James is guilty of ‘Distributing Child Abuse Material’?
3) Once again same scenario only this time James uploads and embeds the video onto a forum owned and operated by his friend, the forum is hosted on local servers. – Is James the only one looking as publishing charges? The servers are Australian and they are hosting material that is (unbeknownst to them) illegal. Is the forum moderator accountable also, for not immediately removing the material and reporting James to the police (despite the lack of knowledge of any wrong doing).
This situation must be remedied. If these charges stick then we are looking at a another step down the tunnel that leads to a police state, where you can be punished for doing nothing but accessing and redistributing already publically held information. We, as a nation cannot afford these charges to set a precedent.