back to article Australia gets its site filter at LAST

Australia is to try the same whack-a-mole strategy to piracy that's failed in other countries, and let the content sector ask for court orders to block allegedly-infringing sites. Because neither the federal government nor the opposition can muster half-a-yard of clue-by-four between them, the bill isn't going to be subject to …

  1. LaeMing
    Thumb Up


    A most delightfully Australian take on the situation.

  2. Trixr

    Or maybe the Great Australian Public could stop electing these morons. If it's the Will of the People, who are we mere SMEs to quibble?

    1. JamesTQuirk

      It's like like "Lest We Forget", we still send our kids to die for these fuckwits ...

    2. Medixstiff

      "Or maybe the Great Australian Public could stop electing these morons."

      Unfortunately they are both as bad as each other and without a brand new party with people that have actually worked for a living and been successful at it, the only thing that would actually help us, is for a piece of space junk to hit Parliament House, when every politician is sitting, so they all get wiped out and we can start from scratch.

    3. Thorne

      We like to not vote for these morons but like with every election it's a case of picking the least useless moron

  3. John Tserkezis

    I'm glad that child-molesting dentist in queensland(*) they were cornering in the last filter is finally out of their sights.

    (*) For those unaware, the first failed attempt at the government's filter that had supposedly only the vilest of the vile child pornograhers on it, also had some innocent queensland dentist on it. Even though the list was hidden, never to be seen, it gets out, and quite rightly, no-one wasted any time in making the goverment look like retarded fuckmoles that they are.

    However, it appears it didn't work. So, calling govco retarded fuckmoles doesn't work, because they already know they are. Perhaps time to try something different. I'd take the safe approach and nuke them from orbit.

  4. Diogenes

    Wind <> brain f**t - filter = brain f**t

    Even if wind turbines could be magicked into being(ie no CO2 or other pollution cough Baotou cough) , and had zero whole of life costs, the need for 100% backup 24/7 from other sources makes their existence utterly pointless. Indeed, given the potential for destabilising the grid, it’s even worse than that.

    I saw one estimate that said it would cost 40 billion, all subsidised by the mug taxpayer to build the required number to meet the requirements of the current RE targets - all to save 0.0043 degrees (taking IPCC worst case & Australia's proportion of world CO2) and which is more often a co2 sink than net co2 contributer

  5. seanf

    Tree-seducing, unicorn-riding insane?

    Tree seducing?? I don't know why but the nonsense style of this article complements perfectly my exasperation with the so called "policies" and "initatives" of these nongs. Thanx.

  6. Fluffy Bunny

    At last a sensible government policy. I don't object to wind farms somewhere else, but please not at the gigantic subsidy that exists now. Every wind farm megawatt (advertised) delivers as much as a hundred kilowatts (real). But it gets subsidised as if it was working in a hurricane 24x7.

    1. Thorne

      "At last a sensible government policy"


      Sorry but I can't put my faith in any policy indorsed by a fluffy bunny (Or Tony Rabbit either)

  7. Winkypop Silver badge

    Abbott's either mad or very very stupid

    It would be kinder if he was mad, at least he'd have an excuse.

    - Entitlements rorter

    - Sexist

    - Homophobe

    - Kiddie fiddling Priest supporter

    - Climate denialist

    - Science denialist

    - Tilter at windmills

    1. Thorne

      Re: Abbott's either mad or very very stupid

      Sexist? He's the minister for women.......

  8. Dave Bruce

    "in spite of there being no scientific research that wind farm noise endangers health"

    There's been a deal of research and a significant body of evidence produced on the effects of "wind farm noise" on health. See e.g. Dr Pierpoint's "Wind Turbine Syndrome" of 2009. You're entitled to criticise or dismiss that evidence but to suggest there isn't any hints of advocacy, not competent journalism, especially in a piece on a completely different topic.

  9. Crux

    I agree with the A Bott on this one. I always liked the idea of wind power for the free energy it gives. But now that I am an engineer and have researched it, on economic and pollution grounds they just don't stack up.

    I travelled throughout Europe recently and found the constant wind turbines everywhere a serious eyesore and sad. half were not working. They should not be subsidised. if they were not I am sure they would still be built, but supplied cheaper.

    Esperance had wind turbines years before subsidies...they also have a gas/diesel power station too.

    Also, no one takes into account the cost to the environment in China. does that not count?

  10. Big-nosed Pengie

    The gods preserve us from this buffoon.

  11. Medixstiff

    The same could be send of yourself Tony: "when I have been up close to these wind farms not only are they visually awful but they make a lot of noise”.

  12. Gartal






POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon