I discovered this morning that one of my scripts received an error code back from an API that I had never seen before, so I had to make some minor changes to accommodate that – so at the same time I have rolled out my Twitter auto-tagging feature, meaning that tags on my postings here will automagically become hashtags over on Twitter.

I’ve also fixed an annoying “Operation Aborted” error message that you sometimes get when viewing with Internet Explorer – all the more reason not to use it though, I say!

Have a good weekend!

This evening’s 17:29 Southern Cross to Marshall was cancelled. So what you ask? Well, it’s more the circumstances that caused it’s cancellation, and the subsequent “customer service” experience that’s really gotten up my nose.

Once again, I was there that night. I was right behind the flight of his winning final goal. Delirium followed, and I still get chills watching this footage. Awesome.

Russell Ingall seemingly forgets to change down gears until the very last moment in the midst of this passing attempt on Will Davison. Just love the quick downshifts when he suddenly arrives at the first corner, and realises that he’s still in sixth gear!

Great stuff!

And here is the code used to achieve his deceptive behaviour, as it appears on his site today:

The funny part of their defense of the comments is that they proudly stated that his comments didn’t apply to his proposed internet filter, and that the comment “should be taken in the full context of the interview” (IPTV content regulation), is that he was actually right in saying “you can’t regulate the internet” – even in terms of his stupid filter! Why?

Well, just so you understand – the department have clarified that the transcript makes it clear that the minister was discussing Australian content levels and not internet regulation generally. Okay.

There is currently a secret meeting underway in Mexico in regards to the protection of copyrighted works on the internet, with the aim of producing the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). A whole raft of countries/nation states/economic unions are involved – the United States, the European Union, Canada, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, Singapore, Jordan, Morocco, the United Arab Emirates, and Australia. Yes, take note – Australia is a part of this. Read more about what ACTA is about here:

It is interesting that the leaked draft of the section of the ACTA proposal relating to digital enforcement of works on the internet seems to make clear that governments cannot mandate internet filtering.

Hang on – Australia is a party to this proposed trade agreement, which seems to explicitly forbid internet filtering, yet Conroy still wants his internet filter implemented? It is becoming more and more apparent to me that not only Conroy is completely out of touch with even the general goings in the industry(s) covering the portfolio he is RESPONSIBLE for, but he also is unaware of other “secret” dealings the government he is a part of is participating in internationally, that broadly affect large swathes of his own policy agenda!

We should be demanding some kind of explanation here. This is not good enough. Not only does his proposed filter not work; not only is it not required; not only do huge numbers of people not want it – Australia is at the table negotiating a trade agreement that will apparently FORBID it! If he doesn’t understand just how people don’t want it, here’s the results of a Sky News Australia poll from December 20th 2009:

I think it’s hilarious that the Department of Broadband, Communcations and the Digital Economy (DBCDE) spokesperson makes the point that it is “important that the comment was heard in the context of the full interview”. How about you monkeys respond in the full context of my posting? I specifically said:

Okay – this comment was specifically in the context of IPTV, but if you can’t regulate the internet in terms of IPTV, how can you regulate it in terms of anything else? How is IPTV content any different to any other internet content?

Minister/Department, you’ve taken my post out of context! I specifically made light of the IPTV context of the comment, yet – as per usual – you bent the question I asked towards your own agenda. I even directed people towards a full download of the interview to make their own judgement!

Why does the Minister and the DBCDE consistently refuse to answer the questions raised by constituents? Why do they continually deflect even the remotest criticism of their plan and twist it in their own evil ways? Do they even remotely understand that the stupid filter they are so in love with, won’t actually work? That it simply won’t prevent access to the material they claim it will block?

If they are so confident that they can block specific URLs, why can’t they block the IPTV URLs, thereby enforcing “content rules”? Filtering the internet in ANY WAY is “enforcing content rules”! You know why? Because some of these IPTV streams are owned/will be owned by the big media moguls – (either people who have already achieved that status, or will BECAUSE of IPTV). Why piss off the big media barons who might make campaign contributions?

Yeah, because they might make campaign contributions.

Wouldn’t it be a better idea not to piss off the people who can vote you out of office, Mr Conroy?