Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
This is currently at the stage of the government looking for expressions of interest from ISP's to set this up for a trial. I only hope that this trial shows that this proposal is the crock of sh*t that everyone says it is. The previous Liberal government's proposal is a much more viable, and better suited proposal. They were providing web monitoring software to be run on each PC (at the request of the owner) rather than scanning the incoming data in real-time. Andrew 2008/11/27 Hassan Schroeder [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Brett Patterson wrote: 1) That, I do believe is a crock of shit! 2) If he does anything like that, he will be dead!!! --and-- 3) Anyone who believes in those ideas are fucked up, stupid, and this I can promise, will NOT make it in this world, dead or alive! 4) Like I said, I think this a crock of shit, and possibly spam. Very expressive. Though you might want to adjust your meds a bit :-) And you might want to google, say, Australia firewall censorship... FWIW, -- Hassan Schroeder - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Webtuitive Design === (+1) 408-621-3445 === http://webtuitive.com dream. code. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Fw: The Great Firewall of Australia
Nedlud, My understanding is that as long as the majority of elected members of parliament support this proposition, it will be able to pass through, even though it is technically unfeasible. The Liberals and the Greens are very opposed to this legislation, and it cannot be passed in the Senate without the support of either the Liberals or the Greens. I am hoping that the live testing/trial that will be carried out early next year just shows that this is technically unfeasible. It is quite stupid to be filtering the internet for everyone in Australia, when it is much simpler to be done on each individual PC through the use of software as the previous Liberal government proposed. This is a step backwards in my opinion, and it has finally started to hit the wider community, however they are pushing the child porn case, and as such, anyone seen opposing this legislation, is in fact supporting child porn being freely available. In my day to day surfing of the net, I have never once come across child pornography, you only seem to be able to find it if you go searching for it in my opinion. So this legislation to enforce filtering is overkill. Andrew 2008/11/27 nedlud [EMAIL PROTECTED]: (Hoping this thread isn't off topic) Isn't this all a storm in a tea cup? Last time I checked, Australia was still a democracy, and while *somebody* must have voted for Conroy, we (Australians) still get a say. But aren't there some serious practical barriers to this? Would ISP's seriously get behind this? Is it even technically feasible to do properly? And will the internet surfing population of Australia get behind it? We have all kinds of talk in the press about getting a high speed network, while at the same time there is talk of this filtering guff *slowing* the our net by up to 80%. What I'm saying is: I don't know how much I care about this issue. Yes, it's shocking that anyone would try this in Australia, but aren't it's chances of getting off the ground about zero? Nedlud. On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:29 PM, Blake [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Thu, Nov 27, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Anthony Ziebell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oh, it's certainly not spam. It's been all over news, whirlpool, everywhere. Yes, it's definitely real. I feel ashamed of being Australian right there. -- Blake Haswell http://www.blakehaswell.com/ | http://blakehaswell.wordpress.com/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] First Attempt
But the ease of updating a site using a CMS such as Drupal or WordPress is often what people are wanting. To code each page individually, for many people would be a right pain in the ass, as well as looking after file structures and all that. Using a CMS is just bleedingly obvious for most people, especially those who are more interested in the content of the site, than going through the process of coding a site. Plus, most hosts give you advance notice of the need to upgrade your hosting from a shared plan to a VPS or a dedi box once you have stretched the limits of the shared plan. Or at least that is my experience with shared hosts. For a website starting out, I've never had a problem using WP on shared hosting. Andrew 2008/11/26 Michael MD [EMAIL PROTECTED] The way to make it work is to stop writing static HTML sites. Instead use one of the many freely available open source CMS frameworks and simply hand code the templates for them once (making hand coded changes for other customer sites as required). That's what we do with Drupal. I would not recommend this for sites on shared servers unless they really do need a full-featured CMS. Speed is important .. why add bloat if its not needed? A mysql server in a typical ISP shared hosting environment often struggles to handle a large number of statements per second from hundreds of sites .. especially when some of the sites are being hit hard by crawlers. ..most off-the-shelf CMS do way too many lookups to show even a simple page Drupal, Wordpress and Joomla are very bad in this regard (doing around 15-40 mysql lookups for each page!) ... Xoops seems better with its file-based caching but may still be overkill in a lot of cases. A lot of this waste comes from storing stats in mysql, looking up user data, etc ... (and in some cases attempting to use mysql even for caching! bad.. bad.. bad..) If you are not using user logins then why do all those extra lookups? I think part of the problem might be that a lot of CMS developers are not testing on busy shared servers or high-traffic sites. (they are probably only testing on dedicated servers where they have mysql to themselves and the bottlenecks might be elsewhere) I'm not going to tell people to spend extra cash for a dedicated server if all they want is a few simple static pages. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
