the news thread

Charlie73 · Post by **Charlie73** » Thu Aug 30, 2007 1:49 pm

bloody Howard, he has GOT to go.....

I know we will enter into an uncertain time, but damn, shit has got to change!
I cannot live in this country under his Govt much longer..... Charlie eyes the os want ads, and hopes her boy will move

Post by **lynt** » Fri Aug 31, 2007 9:07 am

http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/watch ... 60345.html

Communist state anyone? Big Brother is watching.

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:03 pm

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 95892.html

Melbourne City Council wants to comply with resident complaints and crack down on the noise in the city at night. Cause you know, nightclubs are evil mmmkay?

Who lives in the city?? What's it like?? I'm interested in comparing the opinions of young professional mbc.er's to the opinions of the Residents Rights people.

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:16 pm

lynt wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/watch ... 60345.html

Communist state anyone? Big Brother is watching.

They're protecting the copyright entitlement of movie houses and record companies - I don't think it's as extreme as a Communist state is it?

Post by **JAMESSSS** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:17 pm

It can be a little noisy when lots of people are round - we lived on King st so we got people going to and from the footy. Not too bad though, def well under tolerance level. I'd have to say the main noise pollutant is the council street sweepers though. No effort to minimise noise made there at all.

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:24 pm

the detail of what council are actually doing is thus:

"Melbourne council has responded with a review of the planning process for new licensed premises and venues that apply to increase their trading hours or floor space.

The planning review will also aim to reduce the concentration of venues."

this isnt a policing change, its a revision to the planning system. an educated guess is that its about putting better controls on venues so you dont get noisy clubs popping up unintended, esp when they havent been designed for nosie control. is this a bad thing?

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 1:36 pm

Nah not bad, and I totally get the idea of trying to curb the sprouting of new clubs and stuff, but it's hardly anyone's fault that there's so much more noise and violence now then last year. It just sounds like Maureen's complaining about what's already there, ie:'"Talk to any city resident and there is a real issue with violence, drunkenness, noise and vomiting in the streets," Ms Capp said.'

Given the new smoking laws, I'd say it's only going to increase. Residents just have to suffer the consequences living in the most livable city in the world.

In other news, we have a Pete Doherty in our midst
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/09/ ... heage:top5

Post by **lynt** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 3:22 pm

Direktor wrote:
lynt wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/watch ... 60345.html

Communist state anyone? Big Brother is watching.
They're protecting the copyright entitlement of movie houses and record companies - I don't think it's as extreme as a Communist state is it?

Sure.

They're protecting the copyright entitlement of movie houses and record companies by transparently watching your internet activities.

I don't see it any other way. So long, privacy!

Post by **JAMESSSS** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:09 pm

Where does it say that in the article?

Post by **system** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:19 pm

lynt wrote:
Direktor wrote:
lynt wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/news/web/watch ... 60345.html

Communist state anyone? Big Brother is watching.
They're protecting the copyright entitlement of movie houses and record companies - I don't think it's as extreme as a Communist state is it?

Sure.

They're protecting the copyright entitlement of movie houses and record companies by transparently watching your internet activities.

I don't see it any other way. So long, privacy!

these are the same people who are trying to stop distributed file sharing of copyrighted material by spreading viruses in fake versions of the same files. not the kind of mentality i would like to see involved potentially accessing my personal details.

Post by **system** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:20 pm

jbs wrote:Where does it say that in the article?

Asher Moses, for The Age, wrote:Adrianne Pecotic, executive director of AFACT, said talks had broken down with the industry body that represents the ISPs, the Internet Industry Association (IIA). AFACT was now asking ISPs individually to implement the proposal, which Ms Pecotic presented at the Australian Telecommunications Summit in Sydney today.

She proposes that AFACT would identify the internet addresses of those suspected of illegal downloading and pass those details on to the ISPs, which would be able to identify the specific customers.

The ISP would then send those customers a letter directing them to an information site "to educate people that this activity is illegal, that it's not anonymous". Repeat offenders would have their access speeds slowed and, ultimately, their internet service disconnected "if they continue to flagrantly engage in illegal activity".

Direkt · Post by **Direkt** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:28 pm

^okay. But doesn't that mean if you're not hopping onto these pirate sites, then all is well?

Wouldn't it be like a flagging system. In that anyone accessing certain illegal pirate sites is automatically red-flagged and referred?

Post by **JAMESSSS** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:29 pm

It doesn't say the ISPs would help AFACT by providing any monitoring abilities. As I read it they would do that themselves, as they most certainly are doing at the moment.

The problem as I see it is AFACT is most certainly NOT in a position to be identifying pirates.

Post by **system** » Mon Sep 03, 2007 4:36 pm

Direktor wrote:^okay. But doesn't that mean if you're not hopping onto these pirate sites, then all is well?

Wouldn't it be like a flagging system. In that anyone accessing certain illegal pirate sites is automatically red-flagged and referred?

the article is alluding to distributed file sharing, which makes it harder for any recording industry group to track this stuff. getting access to isp records (which is what they have always been after) means that privacy is out the window 4realz.

jbs wrote:It doesn't say the ISPs would help AFACT by providing any monitoring abilities. As I read it they would do that themselves, as they most certainly are doing at the moment.

The problem as I see it is AFACT is most certainly NOT in a position to be identifying pirates.

the us version of afact (aka the riaa) pay certain internet companies a fortune to both monitor as many portions of the backbone as they can, as well as pump out damaged versions of files being shared. i'd imagine that afact would be taking a similar approach here.

not an effective solution.

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 11:30 am

Spirit of Che Rising...

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/gue ... 34364.html

sneaky hands · Post by **sneaky hands** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:24 pm

interesting perspective, id argue that these movements are doomed once the people realise these populist leaders arent actually doing much good for their countries beyond giving out handouts to poor people.

Hugo Chavez is the only one who's got much chance of longer term appeal and that's only cos he has access to Venezuelas oil revenues.

Blaxter · Post by **Blaxter** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 4:12 pm

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/ ... 97394.html

Fents · Post by **Fents** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 5:22 pm

black star wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/ ... 97394.html

black maddox stars again in the sequel!

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:12 pm

Melbourne cops prepare for stop work strike

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html

this is an old-ish article, but its been on the news

i know they prob won't all strike and walk off work completely. But could you imagine if they did. the mind boggles really

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:25 pm

I heard they aren't going to process speeding fines and red light camera fines...for the time being. Their plan is to hit the government where it hurts most, the hip pocket.

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 7:26 pm

they have so much power its ridiculous to even contemplate.

but its funny cos they attacking the government lol

Post by **Friday** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:05 pm

http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 79922.html

Charlie73 · Post by **Charlie73** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:11 pm

^^^^ bwahahahahahaahaha

witty_pseudonym · Post by **witty_pseudonym** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 5:21 pm

christ they're cheeky bastards.

Post by **system** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:08 pm

r.i.p. the original fat bastard.

Lizkins · Post by **Lizkins** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:11 pm

system wrote:r.i.p. the original fat bastard.

RIP brilliant voice

C.I.A. · Post by **C.I.A.** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:19 pm

mixtress wrote:http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/ ... 95892.html

Melbourne City Council wants to comply with resident complaints and crack down on the noise in the city at night. Cause you know, nightclubs are evil mmmkay?

Who lives in the city?? What's it like?? I'm interested in comparing the opinions of young professional mbc.er's to the opinions of the Residents Rights people.

Lolercopter. I live in the city. I was offered double glazing on my place, but the noise is so not bad that I ended up saying 'thanks but no thanks'. My neighbours did the same thing (the double glazing looked wrongtown (tm))

As far as I'm concerned, if you live in the city, you've got to expect some noise. Don't move in and then be all "bleat bleat meow meow meow" about it.

Music and bars have revived the CBD. Get. Over. It. People.

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:25 pm

without complexity, the logical endpoint of that argument allows a complete free reign to bars with no sense of environmental responsibility.

some noise yes, but come now, does that remove the right to any protection from noise

i for one think that all homes must be deisgned to allow for rowdy people, garbos, traffic etc. and no residence should cause the loss of nosie compliance for music form a club. but new clubs should be designed to not impact unfairly on people already nearby- in terms of music emissions.

the underlying problem is at a planning macro level, and the degree of coexistance, especially where residents can build without permits. but venues need some accountability, and its not like noise standards are a suprise, theyve been there for donkeys years

actually its the huge resident influx over the past 15 years which has really helped revive the city.

C.I.A. · Post by **C.I.A.** » Thu Sep 06, 2007 6:29 pm

FoundationStepper wrote:the logical endpoint of that argument allows a complete free reign to bars with no sense of environmental responsibility.

some noise yes, but come now, does that remove the right to any protection from noise

i for one think that all homes must be deisgned to allow for rowdy people, garbos, traffic etc. and no residence should cause the loss of nosie compliance for music form a club. but new clubs should be designed to not impact unfairly on people already nearby- in terms of music emissions.

the underlying problem is at a planning macro level, and the degree of coexistance, especially where residents can build without permits. but venues need some accountability, and its not like noise standards are a suprise, theyve been there for donkeys years

actually its the huge resident influx over the past 15 years which has really helped revive the city.

This is totally true re the accountability.

And the planning that was implemented a while ago to try and attract more residents to the CBD. But now it is becoming an increasingly attractive place to live and the nightlife is a reasonable contributor to this.

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:41 pm

What did everyone think of the Chaser's stunt at APEC??

I'm surprised they didn't get shot, but it shows that $250 million dollars worth of security means nada.

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:46 pm

Oh, and this made me rofl pretty hardy

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22 ... 09,00.html

Post by **lynt** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:09 pm

mixtress wrote:Oh, and this made me rofl pretty hardy

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22 ... 09,00.html

I just saw that. What a fucking muppet.

Goes to show he really has no idea who or where he is.

Chasers FTW!

Post by **lynt** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:11 pm

mixtress wrote:What did everyone think of the Chaser's stunt at APEC??

I'm surprised they didn't get shot, but it shows that $250 million dollars worth of security means nada.

Check the poll...

http://www.theage.com.au/polls/national/results2.html

ghetto kitty · Post by **ghetto kitty** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 3:19 pm

mixtress wrote:What did everyone think of the Chaser's stunt at APEC??

I'm surprised they didn't get shot, but it shows that $250 million dollars worth of security means nada.

i say BIG THE FUCK UPS to them.

i have been discussing apec elsewhere, and if i could be there to document it, and lend my body to the masses, i would.

after my views on G20, i know to say nothing more than that.

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 5:40 pm

jbs wrote:It can be a little noisy when lots of people are round - we lived on King st so we got people going to and from the footy. Not too bad though, def well under tolerance level. I'd have to say the main noise pollutant is the council street sweepers though. No effort to minimise noise made there at all.

yeah, same.... Latrobe street for me (right near king).....

biggest problem is street sweepers going by at 5am... I have personally complained a number of times and it still keeps happening.....

and I work here

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:07 pm

Oh and BTW the amount of complaints in general that we get regarding night-club noise and particularly patron behaviour around the adjoining streets is VERY large. I totally support the "move to the city, and put up with city issues (AKA noise)" debate, but you gotta simpathise with people who have vomit on their front door step every Sunday morning.

Jinx · Post by **Jinx** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:22 pm

deviant wrote:Oh and BTW the amount of complaints in general that we get regarding night-club noise and particularly patron behaviour around the adjoining streets is VERY large. I totally support the "move to the city, and put up with city issues (AKA noise)" debate, but you gotta simpathise with people who have vomit on their front door step every Sunday morning.

Vomit being one of the more pleasant things one can find on the door step on any given Sunday morning

C.I.A. · Post by **C.I.A.** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 6:29 pm

deviant wrote:Oh and BTW the amount of complaints in general that we get regarding night-club noise and particularly patron behaviour around the adjoining streets is VERY large. I totally support the "move to the city, and put up with city issues (AKA noise)" debate, but you gotta simpathise with people who have vomit on their front door step every Sunday morning.

Yeah. I can imagine that the suck would be turned to 11 if there was vomit on your doorstep every weekend. I'm pretty glad that has never happened to me. And I hear you on the street sweepers (insert dad humour here).

FoundationStepper · Post by **FoundationStepper** » Fri Sep 07, 2007 8:18 pm

from what ive been told, the problem with street sweepers is that they are to capacity in altering thier routes for noise complainants

if you move the cleanign times/routes arond for every noise affected person eventually you dont have anywhere you can go...

and if you dont clean up all the filth of the late night revellers the ratepayers and visitors will certianly not be happy either

in paris its all manual, with sctuall brooms and shit. quiet but labour expensive!

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 1:46 am

bring out the brooms I say!! We should give those tourism volunteers with the red polo shirts a broom to walk around with

nic · Post by **nic** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 12:22 pm

jbs wrote:It can be a little noisy when lots of people are round - we lived on King st so we got people going to and from the footy. Not too bad though, def well under tolerance level. I'd have to say the main noise pollutant is the council street sweepers though. No effort to minimise noise made there at all.

yer it is pretty noisy but its part of living in city really, to an extent.

but fucken oaf i hate the assortment of street sweeping equipment the council has.

i especially hate the little trucks with small men inside that just drive through anything making that woooossshhing noise. it would be really pleasing to push one over and burn it.

iv complained about out of hours building noise and smelly dirty cafes 3 times in the last 3 months, such a grump. It does annoy me when bastard cheap ass cafe shop owners couldn't possibly close their shop for one day to renovate and instead try and do it all out of hours t the detriment of residents.

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 2:04 pm

'Bout fucking time:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/mis ... 34741.html

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:13 pm

Fucking pricks. I've always tried to defend the police, but it's getting harder and harder with cunts like these around:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/09/ ... 54892.html

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 10:44 am

Hardy wrote:Fucking pricks. I've always tried to defend the police, but it's getting harder and harder with cunts like these around:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/09/ ... 54892.html

Word Hardy. The last line says it all...

"If you give police powers like this they will be abused"

No shit. Giving the coppers carte blanche was a bad move, there's no way you can prevent Rambo's from taking it to the next level given that kind of power. Talk about an inflated sense of importance

mixtress · Post by **mixtress** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 11:53 am

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22 ... om=mostpop

What a pack of assholes. You buy a car like a Hummer and you have to expect that people will look at it.

Thugs

Post by **breaksRbest** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:15 pm

Hardy wrote:Fucking pricks. I've always tried to defend the police, but it's getting harder and harder with cunts like these around:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/09/ ... 54892.html

from the 11 year old....

"I was really upset when I saw them take my dad. I'm going to throw away all my police videos now and go and buy Ocean's Thirteen," he said."

at least he kept his sense of humour

Hatsudai · Post by **Hatsudai** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 5:55 pm

mixtress wrote:http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22 ... om=mostpop

What a pack of assholes. You buy a car like a Hummer and you have to expect that people will look at it.

Thugs

that is f**cked

Hardy · Post by **Hardy** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:45 pm

mixtress wrote:http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22 ... om=mostpop

What a pack of assholes. You buy a car like a Hummer and you have to expect that people will look at it.

Thugs

True, but the kind of dipshit who would buy a hummer is also the kind of moron who would punch you for looking at it. To anyone considering getting one: Don't. They're fucking stupid.

C.I.A. · Post by **C.I.A.** » Mon Sep 10, 2007 6:54 pm

Hardy wrote:
mixtress wrote:http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22 ... om=mostpop

What a pack of assholes. You buy a car like a Hummer and you have to expect that people will look at it.

Thugs
True, but the kind of dipshit who would buy a hummer is also the kind of moron who would punch you for looking at it. To anyone considering getting one: Don't. They're fucking stupid.

And driving a stretch hummer is the equivalent of writing "my penis is almost as big as a 5c piece/my vag doubles as a greywater storage tank" in texta on your forehead.

Could. Not.

deviant · Post by **deviant** » Tue Sep 11, 2007 1:59 am

fuck man, that is right near my place.... I hate that sort of shit

HATE