Two national safe seats were lost to the greens.
That's significant.
Doubly interesting since the two seats that the greens gained in Victoria were also supposed to be "safe" liberal seats. I read an article about it (I think someone might have actually linked to it from this very thread) that explained that this was probably because while die-hard liberal voters are unlikely to ever vote labor, there's no such animosity towards the greens. So in other words, it turns out that a "safe" liberal seat is only really safe from labor.
Two national safe seats were lost to the greens.
That's significant.
I thought there might be a swing to the greens from safe national seats, mainly because in the lead up to the election there was a lot of complaints from farmers about mining endeavors poisoning the water and land around the fertile farmlands in NSW. The nationals are being seen as allowing the Liberals to grant these mining contracts, so....
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
do they actually
get more money this way
like are there enough poor people that not taxing the really rich for what they can actually afford gets them lots more money
cos considering the wealth disparity, that seems unlikely
the rich have most of the money...
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Treasurer Joe Hockey has said Australia is “losing control of our destiny from a taxation perspective” because of “holes” in the tax treatment of multinational corporations, as a parliamentary committee prepares to grill global companies about the tax they pay and former tax officials warn that the tax office has lost the expertise to tackle the problem.
Despite Hockey’s concerns, the government rejected a recent suggestion from Labor to save $1.9bn over four years from multinational companies which avoid Australian tax by loading debt into their Australian operations, although it did make some changes to the so-called thin capitalisation rules last year.
The Coalition is also moving to exempt 700 private companies from new tax transparency rules because of fears it could jeopardise their safety and possibly lead to kidnappings. Hockey’s tax discussion paper proposes “a lower corporate tax rate” as one way to tackle the problem because it “would reduce the incentive for tax planning and profit shifting from Australia.”
“This would potentially reduce the revenue that is lost to tax planning and allow the resources devoted to tax planning and compliance activities to be used more productively in the economy,” the discussion paper says.
Treasurer Joe Hockey has said Australia is “losing control of our destiny from a taxation perspective” because of “holes” in the tax treatment of multinational corporations, as a parliamentary committee prepares to grill global companies about the tax they pay and former tax officials warn that the tax office has lost the expertise to tackle the problem.
Despite Hockey’s concerns, the government rejected a recent suggestion from Labor to save $1.9bn over four years from multinational companies which avoid Australian tax by loading debt into their Australian operations, although it did make some changes to the so-called thin capitalisation rules last year.
The Coalition is also moving to exempt 700 private companies from new tax transparency rules because of fears it could jeopardise their safety and possibly lead to kidnappings. Hockey’s tax discussion paper proposes “a lower corporate tax rate” as one way to tackle the problem because it “would reduce the incentive for tax planning and profit shifting from Australia.”
“This would potentially reduce the revenue that is lost to tax planning and allow the resources devoted to tax planning and compliance activities to be used more productively in the economy,” the discussion paper says.
The mind boggles.
Someone mind summarising that for me? As it were for a child, as it were. My brain has just stopped this afternoon.
Treasurer Joe Hockey has said Australia is “losing control of our destiny from a taxation perspective” because of “holes” in the tax treatment of multinational corporations, as a parliamentary committee prepares to grill global companies about the tax they pay and former tax officials warn that the tax office has lost the expertise to tackle the problem.
Despite Hockey’s concerns, the government rejected a recent suggestion from Labor to save $1.9bn over four years from multinational companies which avoid Australian tax by loading debt into their Australian operations, although it did make some changes to the so-called thin capitalisation rules last year.
The Coalition is also moving to exempt 700 private companies from new tax transparency rules because of fears it could jeopardise their safety and possibly lead to kidnappings. Hockey’s tax discussion paper proposes “a lower corporate tax rate” as one way to tackle the problem because it “would reduce the incentive for tax planning and profit shifting from Australia.”
“This would potentially reduce the revenue that is lost to tax planning and allow the resources devoted to tax planning and compliance activities to be used more productively in the economy,” the discussion paper says.
The mind boggles.
Someone mind summarising that for me? As it were for a child, as it were. My brain has just stopped this afternoon.
"Companies are avoiding tax, so we should tax them less. This will make them voluntarily stop avoiding tax."
Joe Hockey says that international corporations are able to avoid paying taxes and that Australia is not as well equipped or experienced to deal with the problem.
But the government recently rejected a Labor suggestion to close a loophole that is being used by international corporations to dump their debt on Australia and keep their profits for themselves.
The government has also exempted 700 companies from new tax rules that would have made it harder for them to dodge taxes. And that Hockey's discussion paper proposes a lower tax rate for corporations as one way to tackle the problem of companies avoiding paying Australian taxes. The idea being, 'we're not going to stop companies using tax havens, we're going to become a tax haven. (A tax haven is usually a country that has very low taxes where companies and the filthy rich direct their money to avoid paying higher taxes in their home country).
I don't understand the last bit, I think it is saying that Australia lowering the corporate tax would fix the problem and so the government wouldn't need to spend money to fix the problem. Which is super dumb, because the difference between the amount of lost revenue to tax evasion compared to the cost of lawmaking and enforcing the tax rules is ridiculous. There is far, far more money lost to tax evasion then there ever is in the government attempting to stop tax evasion.
I suggest you wait until someone else corrects or confirms what I have said.
Gvzbgul on
0
Options
UnluckyThat's not meant to happenRegistered Userregular
edited March 2015
Thank you team. Your efforts are muchly appreciated.
Exclusive: Obama, Putin, Merkel, Cameron, Modi and others kept in the dark after passport numbers and other details were disclosed in Australia’s accidental privacy breach.
The personal details of world leaders at the last G20 summit were accidentally disclosed by the Australian immigration department, which did not consider it necessary to inform those world leaders of the privacy breach.
The Guardian can reveal an employee of the agency inadvertently sent the passport numbers, visa details and other personal identifiers of all world leaders attending the summit to the organisers of the Asian Cup football tournament.
The United States president, Barack Obama, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, the Chinese president, Xi Jinping, the Indian prime minister, Narendra Modi, the Japanese prime minister, Shinzo Abe, the Indonesian president, Joko Widodo, and the British prime minister, David Cameron, were among those who attended the Brisbane summit in November and whose details were exposed.
The Australian privacy commissioner was contacted by the director of the visa services division of Australia’s Department of Immigration and Border Protection to inform them of the data breach on 7 November 2014 and seek urgent advice.
In an email sent to the commissioner’s office, obtained under Australia’s freedom of information laws, the breach is attributed to an employee who mistakenly emailed a member of the local organising committee of the Asian Cup – held in Australia in January – with the personal information.
Treasurer Joe Hockey has said Australia is “losing control of our destiny from a taxation perspective” because of “holes” in the tax treatment of multinational corporations, as a parliamentary committee prepares to grill global companies about the tax they pay and former tax officials warn that the tax office has lost the expertise to tackle the problem.
Despite Hockey’s concerns, the government rejected a recent suggestion from Labor to save $1.9bn over four years from multinational companies which avoid Australian tax by loading debt into their Australian operations, although it did make some changes to the so-called thin capitalisation rules last year.
The Coalition is also moving to exempt 700 private companies from new tax transparency rules because of fears it could jeopardise their safety and possibly lead to kidnappings. Hockey’s tax discussion paper proposes “a lower corporate tax rate” as one way to tackle the problem because it “would reduce the incentive for tax planning and profit shifting from Australia.”
“This would potentially reduce the revenue that is lost to tax planning and allow the resources devoted to tax planning and compliance activities to be used more productively in the economy,” the discussion paper says.
The mind boggles.
Someone mind summarising that for me? As it were for a child, as it were. My brain has just stopped this afternoon.
"Companies are avoiding tax, so we should tax them less. This will make them voluntarily stop avoiding tax."
We already have a pretty low company tax rate, by at least a few percentage points compared to Europe.
And yet companies like Disney run their international finances through Europe rather than us.
We're also an investment haven in the sense that we don't tax the profits of foreign investment into managed funds (I think it's the managed funds, specifically).
The actual compliance of large companies was found to be pretty much impeccable, the reason they pay little tax is because we have a load of deductions and such.
Even so, something like 75% of corporate tax is paid by a few dozen corporate entities.
Those facts do not really have a unifying theme except the LNP are druggos
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited March 2015
So, in summary.
Companies are using loopholes to avoid taxes.
LNP don't want this loophole closed because that would mean they can't lower corporate tax instead.
If you are confused by this it is because their logic isn't.
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
+3
Options
HeatwaveCome, now, and walk the path of explosions with me!Registered Userregular
So basically the LNP are keeping the loopholes so they can continue to occasionally offer favors to companies?
the LNP are keeping the loopholes opened because they're a bunch of morons who couldn't find their arse with both hands
it's that or they're genuinely malignant, and for my sanity's sake, i prefer to believe that they're merely incompetant
0
Options
MorninglordI'm tired of being Batman,so today I'll be Owl.Registered Userregular
edited March 2015
i don't know about that anymore
originally I thought they were incompetent
but there's a consistency behind their incompetence that has shown up over time
if they were truly incompetent, they'd accidentally do one or two things right
Morninglord on
(PSN: Morninglord) (Steam: Morninglord) (WiiU: Morninglord22) I like to record and toss up a lot of random gaming videos here.
Remember how Brandis said that Hollywood wouldn't (and then would, and then wouldn't) get to use the metadata collected by the government?
Unsurprisingly, he was lying. A bill was introduced on the same day the metadata law was passed to allow them use of it.
For the moguls, the proposed copyright laws will give them extraordinary power to have websites that they deem to be harmful to their business blocked in Australia. As for Australians that continue to resist, the media giants will now use the courts to gain access to their metadata that will be collected under the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Amendment (Data Retention) Bill 2015.
Was it a coincidence that the Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull introduced the Copyright Amendment (Online Infringement) Bill 2015 into Parliament on 26 March, the same day the data retention bill became law?
The bill itself has an additional interesting twist.
Section 9 of the Bill is likely to become known as the iiNet clause or the “shut up and do as your [sic] told” clause because it states that “the carriage service provider is not liable for any costs in relation to the proceedings unless the provider enters an appearance and takes part in the proceedings.”
In 2012 iiNet fought through the courts against an attempt by the US Media industry to gain access to iiNet customer information and the result was a resounding win in the High Court. Section 9 aims to silence ISPs like iiNet that might be tempted to fight the injunctions on behalf of their customers by imposing costs on the ISPs if they appear at the Federal Court proceedings to argue against a proposed injunction.
And finally, ISPs will be required to implement the injunctions without compensation, meaning that the cost of compliance by the ISPs will be passed on to customers rather than to the US Media Industry.
In general it seems to be a horrendously drafted bill littered with generous allowances for the plaintiff, broad definitions (there's an open question of whether VPNs would be covered, which by the letter of the law would seem to be), significant monetary costs for compliance by ISPs, and the big problem facing all website censorship schemes - block by DNS, and you end up with the site perfectly accessible via the IP address or another name, but block by IP address and you'll kill other sites hosted off the same IP while the original can just change IP address, update its DNS entry, and users would never even know (ie. the same old URL would still lead to the site).
.... fuck this shit, time to see if Canada is still sane.
Harper may be an asshole but he ain't no Tony Abbott.
Corehealer on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Oh god, what.
That is a particularly bizarro version of a safe harbour provision. It makes sense in the DCMA, one of the few things that does, that a service provider is not liable if they comply with takedowns - it has a specifically anti-infringement purpose.
This does nothing to encourage providers to be anything except quiet so as to not rock the boat.
And also this is the type of thing which rubs away any feeling of foolishness I had about revenge voting against the Liberals in the NSW state election. Metapolitics? Normally I think it's stupid, but lets face facts: god we cannot get rid of Tony Abbott and go back to petty internal power squabbles soon enough.
0
Options
MortiousThe Nightmare BeginsMove to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Australia has a gay panic law?
The article states that it's been used successfully in 2008, which is messed up.
The Prime Minister of Fiji, Frank Bainimarama, has repeated his call for New Zealand to be kicked out of the Pacific region's main decision-making body.
Mr Bainimarama's foreign affairs minister told Australian officials on the weekend that either New Zealand or Australia should cease to be full members of the Pacific Islands Forum, the Australian reported.
If this did not occur, the Fijian Prime Minister wanted close ally China to be brought into the 16-member forum
The Prime Minister of Fiji, Frank Bainimarama, has repeated his call for New Zealand to be kicked out of the Pacific region's main decision-making body.
Mr Bainimarama's foreign affairs minister told Australian officials on the weekend that either New Zealand or Australia should cease to be full members of the Pacific Islands Forum, the Australian reported.
If this did not occur, the Fijian Prime Minister wanted close ally China to be brought into the 16-member forum
What's the reasoning behind this?
That's an odd first line ("New Zealand") which is contradicted by the second ("New Zealand or Australia") - playing to the audience (given it's the NZ Herald), but still...
Reading the full article, it appears he wants to hitch Fiji to China's economy which probably wont happen while NZ and Australia are full members of the forum (i.e. the forum would push for members to have preferred supplier status to each other, and Mr Bainimarama wants China to be the supplier instead). He's probably also pissed that Australia and NZ are talking punishments for lack of public elections where China wouldn't care.
If this is true, I can kiiiinda understand (China would certainly be a strong partner on paper), but but Fiji has nothing China wants apart from being a proxy in its dickwaving fights over uninhabited pacific islands. Fiji would probably find most of their industries rebuffed in favor of China's own exports, and its role relegated to supporting Chinese requests for drilling and mining rights in the Pacific.
The Prime Minister of Fiji, Frank Bainimarama, has repeated his call for New Zealand to be kicked out of the Pacific region's main decision-making body.
Mr Bainimarama's foreign affairs minister told Australian officials on the weekend that either New Zealand or Australia should cease to be full members of the Pacific Islands Forum, the Australian reported.
If this did not occur, the Fijian Prime Minister wanted close ally China to be brought into the 16-member forum
What's the reasoning behind this?
That's an odd first line ("New Zealand") which is contradicted by the second ("New Zealand or Australia") - playing to the audience (given it's the NZ Herald), but still...
Reading the full article, it appears he wants to hitch Fiji to China's economy which probably wont happen while NZ and Australia are full members of the forum (i.e. the forum would push for members to have preferred supplier status to each other, and Mr Bainimarama wants China to be the supplier instead). He's probably also pissed that Australia and NZ are talking punishments for lack of public elections where China wouldn't care.
If this is true, I can kiiiinda understand (China would certainly be a strong partner on paper), but but Fiji has nothing China wants apart from being a proxy in its dickwaving fights over uninhabited pacific islands. Fiji would probably find most of their industries rebuffed in favor of China's own exports, and its role relegated to supporting Chinese requests for drilling and mining rights in the Pacific.
Beaten by seconds. Fiji's diplomatic relations with Australia and New Zealand have severely deteriorated in the last few years since its constitutional crisis (then again, they were never very good to begin with thanks to a succession of military coups). This is likely a matter of making a completely unreasonable request that neither Australia nor New Zealand would comply with, in order to get a more agreeable China on board. Given China's less than subtle movements to gain strategic assets (both military and resource related) in the South Pacific, I could see them going for it, though it would set Fiji on a trajectory of becoming a vassal state.
The Prime Minister of Fiji, Frank Bainimarama, has repeated his call for New Zealand to be kicked out of the Pacific region's main decision-making body.
Mr Bainimarama's foreign affairs minister told Australian officials on the weekend that either New Zealand or Australia should cease to be full members of the Pacific Islands Forum, the Australian reported.
If this did not occur, the Fijian Prime Minister wanted close ally China to be brought into the 16-member forum
What's the reasoning behind this?
That's an odd first line ("New Zealand") which is contradicted by the second ("New Zealand or Australia") - playing to the audience (given it's the NZ Herald), but still...
Reading the full article, it appears he wants to hitch Fiji to China's economy which probably wont happen while NZ and Australia are full members of the forum (i.e. the forum would push for members to have preferred supplier status to each other, and Mr Bainimarama wants China to be the supplier instead). He's probably also pissed that Australia and NZ are talking punishments for lack of public elections where China wouldn't care.
If this is true, I can kiiiinda understand (China would certainly be a strong partner on paper), but but Fiji has nothing China wants apart from being a proxy in its dickwaving fights over uninhabited pacific islands. Fiji would probably find most of their industries rebuffed in favor of China's own exports, and its role relegated to supporting Chinese requests for drilling and mining rights in the Pacific.
Beaten by seconds. Fiji's diplomatic relations with Australia and New Zealand have severely deteriorated in the last few years since its constitutional crisis (then again, they were never very good to begin with thanks to a succession of military coups). This is likely a matter of making a completely unreasonable request that neither Australia nor New Zealand would comply with, in order to get a more agreeable China on board. Given China's less than subtle movements to gain strategic assets (both military and resource related) in the South Pacific, I could see them going for it, though it would set Fiji on a trajectory of becoming a vassal state.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the replies, both of you.
The article was a bit light on the history or our relationship with Fiji, and what the forum actually is, and I'm unfamiliar with our relationship with Fiji.
Okay, so it's just an attempt to balance unfavourable NZ/AUS views with potentially more favourable ones.
I'd actually like to see the NZ/AUS response if getting China as a member gets traction. So far we're carefully balancing a pro- and anti-China stance, and something like this would weaken our position in the forum if China joins, and potentiall piss off China if we try and fight it.
iiNet was defeated in its attempt to prevent preliminary discovery on the 4500 IP addresses alleged to have torrented Dallas Buyers Club, which could be a pretty big headache for a terrible movie.
0
Options
WarcryI'm getting my shit pushed in here!AustraliaRegistered Userregular
And that is why you never seed torrents. The law can only smack you for sharing, not consuming.
And that is why you never seed torrents. The law can only smack you for sharing, not consuming.
Not at all: most of the wrangling over BT prosecutions has been because you can define all downloaders as sharing. And yeah, it's technically accurate.
On a related topic: I didn't realize Netflix shutdown their public API. How do people actually watch Netfix via XBMC/Kodi?
Treasurer Joe Hockey personally approved a decision to shield companies sending billions of dollars offshore as part of apparent tax-dodging strategies from being named.
Tax Commissioner Chris Jordan said in a letter to the Senate committee into corporate tax avoidance that Mr Hockey endorsed his decision not to release the names of 10 resources companies that transferred a combined $31.4 billion to Singapore in the financial year 2011-2011
On Saturday, Fairfax Media revealed that a single resources company transferred more than $11 billion to Singapore, where the corporate tax rate is as low as 2.5 per cent. Corporate tax in Australia is levied at 30 per cent.
Apparently privacy is important, as long as you're a sufficiently large corporation.
The federal government is seeking extraordinary new powers that would make it largely immune from liability for inappropriate uses of force on people in immigration detention centres.
The new powers would allow immigration officers – which may include private contractors – to use “reasonable force against any person” if the officer believes it is necessary to protect the life, health or safety of people in detention or to maintain the good order, peace or security of a detention centre.
Such powers potentially give staff with a low level of training a greater level of immunity than that granted to state and federal police forces.
Officers would be able to use the powers in the migration amendment (maintaining the good order of immigration detention facilities) bill as long as they did not subject “a person to greater indignity than the authorised office reasonably believes necessary”.
The bill states that grievous bodily harm – which courts have held to mean injuries that lead to serious or permanent disfigurement – could be inflicted on detainees if the officer “reasonably believes that doing the thing is necessary to protest the life of, or to prevent serious injury to, another person (including the authorised officer)”.
Former psychiatrists and social workers employed on Nauru are demanding a Royal Commission into sexual abuse at the Australian-funded detention centre, accusing the Government of putting asylum seeker children at risk.
The former Nauru workers have signed an open letter to the public, which says the Immigration Department was aware of abuse allegations for 17 months and did not respond adequately.
The federal government is seeking extraordinary new powers that would make it largely immune from liability for inappropriate uses of force on people in immigration detention centres.
The new powers would allow immigration officers – which may include private contractors – to use “reasonable force against any person” if the officer believes it is necessary to protect the life, health or safety of people in detention or to maintain the good order, peace or security of a detention centre.
Such powers potentially give staff with a low level of training a greater level of immunity than that granted to state and federal police forces.
Officers would be able to use the powers in the migration amendment (maintaining the good order of immigration detention facilities) bill as long as they did not subject “a person to greater indignity than the authorised office reasonably believes necessary”.
The bill states that grievous bodily harm – which courts have held to mean injuries that lead to serious or permanent disfigurement – could be inflicted on detainees if the officer “reasonably believes that doing the thing is necessary to protest the life of, or to prevent serious injury to, another person (including the authorised officer)”.
Former psychiatrists and social workers employed on Nauru are demanding a Royal Commission into sexual abuse at the Australian-funded detention centre, accusing the Government of putting asylum seeker children at risk.
The former Nauru workers have signed an open letter to the public, which says the Immigration Department was aware of abuse allegations for 17 months and did not respond adequately.
Posts
Doubly interesting since the two seats that the greens gained in Victoria were also supposed to be "safe" liberal seats. I read an article about it (I think someone might have actually linked to it from this very thread) that explained that this was probably because while die-hard liberal voters are unlikely to ever vote labor, there's no such animosity towards the greens. So in other words, it turns out that a "safe" liberal seat is only really safe from labor.
I thought there might be a swing to the greens from safe national seats, mainly because in the lead up to the election there was a lot of complaints from farmers about mining endeavors poisoning the water and land around the fertile farmlands in NSW. The nationals are being seen as allowing the Liberals to grant these mining contracts, so....
get more money this way
like are there enough poor people that not taxing the really rich for what they can actually afford gets them lots more money
cos considering the wealth disparity, that seems unlikely
the rich have most of the money...
The mind boggles.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
"Companies are avoiding tax, so we should tax them less. This will make them voluntarily stop avoiding tax."
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
But the government recently rejected a Labor suggestion to close a loophole that is being used by international corporations to dump their debt on Australia and keep their profits for themselves.
The government has also exempted 700 companies from new tax rules that would have made it harder for them to dodge taxes. And that Hockey's discussion paper proposes a lower tax rate for corporations as one way to tackle the problem of companies avoiding paying Australian taxes. The idea being, 'we're not going to stop companies using tax havens, we're going to become a tax haven. (A tax haven is usually a country that has very low taxes where companies and the filthy rich direct their money to avoid paying higher taxes in their home country).
I don't understand the last bit, I think it is saying that Australia lowering the corporate tax would fix the problem and so the government wouldn't need to spend money to fix the problem. Which is super dumb, because the difference between the amount of lost revenue to tax evasion compared to the cost of lawmaking and enforcing the tax rules is ridiculous. There is far, far more money lost to tax evasion then there ever is in the government attempting to stop tax evasion.
I suggest you wait until someone else corrects or confirms what I have said.
Have a small, mildly confused fluffy duckling.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/30/personal-details-of-world-leaders-accidentally-revealed-by-g20-organisers
We already have a pretty low company tax rate, by at least a few percentage points compared to Europe.
And yet companies like Disney run their international finances through Europe rather than us.
We're also an investment haven in the sense that we don't tax the profits of foreign investment into managed funds (I think it's the managed funds, specifically).
The actual compliance of large companies was found to be pretty much impeccable, the reason they pay little tax is because we have a load of deductions and such.
Even so, something like 75% of corporate tax is paid by a few dozen corporate entities.
Those facts do not really have a unifying theme except the LNP are druggos
Companies are using loopholes to avoid taxes.
LNP don't want this loophole closed because that would mean they can't lower corporate tax instead.
If you are confused by this it is because their logic isn't.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
it's that or they're genuinely malignant, and for my sanity's sake, i prefer to believe that they're merely incompetant
originally I thought they were incompetent
but there's a consistency behind their incompetence that has shown up over time
if they were truly incompetent, they'd accidentally do one or two things right
The only school within the centre is being shut down. The Nauru school students, begging for this not to happen, will be moved to is an unsanitary squalor.
A five year old girl has attempted suicide for fear of going back to Nauru. The article's a hard read.
A Labor MP that has been offered a flight to Nauru by the LNP has been barred from going immediately after Labor backed an inquiry into the centre.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
which, yes
at this point scott morrison should literally be in jail
But now for some good news! The Liberal party have finally recognised that negative gearing is a problem and will be moving to correct it.
Now for some bad news! They want to grandfather things in.
Unsurprisingly, he was lying. A bill was introduced on the same day the metadata law was passed to allow them use of it. The bill itself has an additional interesting twist. In general it seems to be a horrendously drafted bill littered with generous allowances for the plaintiff, broad definitions (there's an open question of whether VPNs would be covered, which by the letter of the law would seem to be), significant monetary costs for compliance by ISPs, and the big problem facing all website censorship schemes - block by DNS, and you end up with the site perfectly accessible via the IP address or another name, but block by IP address and you'll kill other sites hosted off the same IP while the original can just change IP address, update its DNS entry, and users would never even know (ie. the same old URL would still lead to the site).
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Harper may be an asshole but he ain't no Tony Abbott.
That is a particularly bizarro version of a safe harbour provision. It makes sense in the DCMA, one of the few things that does, that a service provider is not liable if they comply with takedowns - it has a specifically anti-infringement purpose.
This does nothing to encourage providers to be anything except quiet so as to not rock the boat.
Oh.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Where's my Hail Hydra! button when you need it.
Clearly Icy is a Hydra mole.
And also this is the type of thing which rubs away any feeling of foolishness I had about revenge voting against the Liberals in the NSW state election. Metapolitics? Normally I think it's stupid, but lets face facts: god we cannot get rid of Tony Abbott and go back to petty internal power squabbles soon enough.
The article states that it's been used successfully in 2008, which is messed up.
Hopefully it gets overturned soon.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11428569
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
you what
wow i thought id reached a, like, plateau, a kind of constant misery where there could be no more major spikes
but this
i am fucking angry
Queensland?
I see.
What's the reasoning behind this?
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Reading the full article, it appears he wants to hitch Fiji to China's economy which probably wont happen while NZ and Australia are full members of the forum (i.e. the forum would push for members to have preferred supplier status to each other, and Mr Bainimarama wants China to be the supplier instead). He's probably also pissed that Australia and NZ are talking punishments for lack of public elections where China wouldn't care.
If this is true, I can kiiiinda understand (China would certainly be a strong partner on paper), but but Fiji has nothing China wants apart from being a proxy in its dickwaving fights over uninhabited pacific islands. Fiji would probably find most of their industries rebuffed in favor of China's own exports, and its role relegated to supporting Chinese requests for drilling and mining rights in the Pacific.
Beaten by seconds. Fiji's diplomatic relations with Australia and New Zealand have severely deteriorated in the last few years since its constitutional crisis (then again, they were never very good to begin with thanks to a succession of military coups). This is likely a matter of making a completely unreasonable request that neither Australia nor New Zealand would comply with, in order to get a more agreeable China on board. Given China's less than subtle movements to gain strategic assets (both military and resource related) in the South Pacific, I could see them going for it, though it would set Fiji on a trajectory of becoming a vassal state.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Ah, I see. Thanks for the replies, both of you.
The article was a bit light on the history or our relationship with Fiji, and what the forum actually is, and I'm unfamiliar with our relationship with Fiji.
Okay, so it's just an attempt to balance unfavourable NZ/AUS views with potentially more favourable ones.
I'd actually like to see the NZ/AUS response if getting China as a member gets traction. So far we're carefully balancing a pro- and anti-China stance, and something like this would weaken our position in the forum if China joins, and potentiall piss off China if we try and fight it.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/572051/loss-iinet-dallas-buyers-club-court-battle/
iiNet was defeated in its attempt to prevent preliminary discovery on the 4500 IP addresses alleged to have torrented Dallas Buyers Club, which could be a pretty big headache for a terrible movie.
Not at all: most of the wrangling over BT prosecutions has been because you can define all downloaders as sharing. And yeah, it's technically accurate.
On a related topic: I didn't realize Netflix shutdown their public API. How do people actually watch Netfix via XBMC/Kodi?
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
Old PA forum lookalike style for the new forums | My ko-fi donation thing.
What the fuck