In what will undoubtedly become a hot contender for worst PR disaster of 2011, clothes maker Kenneth Cole has used the Egyptian protests to promote his spring collection.

In a message on Twitter, Kenneth Cole wrote that “Millions are in an uproar in #Cairo. Rumor is they heard our new spring collection is now available online” and then included a link to their website promoting the collection.

In case you’ve been living in a cave, massive protests have erupted in Egypt in an attempt to overthrow the ruling dictatorship, and scores of people have been killed.

The web has naturally not taken Kenneth Cole’s tweet lightly, with calls to boycott the company and even a fake Twitter account mocking Cole, with tweets such as “Rolling through Germany? Gestapo by our new Berlin store!” and “Jeffrey Dahmer would have eaten up our spring collection!”

In a post to Facebook, Cole apologized for the gaffe, writing that “I apologize to everyone who was offended by my insensitive tweet about the situation in Egypt. I’ve dedicated my life to raising awareness about serious social issues, and in hindsight my attempt at humor regarding a nation liberating themselves against oppression was poorly timed and absolutely inappropriate.”

Might be a case of too little, too late.

Epic Fail: Kenneth Cole Uses Egypt Protests To Promote Spring Collection is a post from: The Inquisitr

Australian Minister for Censorship Stephen Conroy has been caught out of his depth once again on all matters internet, managing to describe malware as “Spams or scams that come through the portal.”

In footage from an SBS News story on cyber security, Conroy tells a reporter:

“There’s a staggering number of Australian’s being in having their computers infected at the moment, up to 20,000, uh, can regularly be getting infected by these spams, or scams, that come through, the portal.”

And this man wants to filter the internet and is currently running a jihad against Google. Fail doesn’t even come close here

The footage as follows (via The Next Web)

Australian Censorship Minister Claims People Under Attack From “Spams Through The Portal” is a post from: The Inquisitr

Just as we thought that Automattic, the company behind WordPress, might finally be softening on its no one can make money from WordPress except us stance, comes news today on an attempt to cripple the thriving “Wordcamp” movement.

Wordcamp’s are WordPress user events, and depending on the event can run anywhere from a small group in a small town, to a near full on conference/ all weekend function complete with sponsors and speakers.

New guidelines currently being imposed by Automattic include a prohibition on profit from a Wordcamp, with all funds to be “returned to the community.” Some may argue that’s a reasonable point, until you realize that as well as prohibiting profit, they are also trying to cripple the covering of costs as well, with a clause that reads “People or companies in violation of the WordPress license cannot be accepted as event organizers or sponsors.”

As Remkus de Vries at Blogging Pro points out:

Does this mean we have to block out sponsors as Microsoft and the likes? They are clearly not GPL compliant…. Same goes for speakers, what if you have perfect speaker and he or she is willing to help out, but because they work for a company that does not support the GPL they won’t be allowed to come? That can’t be right….I don’t think it is humanly possible to conduct a background check on all sponsors and speakers.nd a ban on sponsors that produce.

A kick in the guts for the WordPress community isn’t new from the Matt Mullenweg run company, which in recent years has been happy to sit back and profit from the effort of free community labor, while going out of its way to make sure no one else can.

I wonder if Automattic has ever profited from a WordPress event before?

Automattic Tries To Cripple WordCamp’s With Restrictive New Guidelines is a post from: The Inquisitr

It’s one thing when the name of a company because a word commonly used to describe a failed web product, but its seems that search engine Cuil is in on the joke with a new service called Cpedia.

In theory, Cpedia is an automated version of Wikipedia, or as Cuil describes it “we find everything on the Web about your topic, remove all the duplication and put the information on one page.” It might sound good in theory, but practice is another matter.

For example, take my Cpedia page. Here’s some highlights:

TechCrunch’s Robin Wauters celebrates his blog’s top position, Duncan Riley is pretty pissed off.

Duncan Riley he of The Blog Herald, Weblog Empire, b5media, TechCrunch, and now The Inquisitr speaks with Richard Jalichandra. Duncan Riley edits The Inquisitr, a daily dose of tech, pop and penguins, and is also a regular on FriendFeed.

The two kids that tell him to take a hike are Michael Arrington an Duncan Riley.

The following post was submitted by Duncan Riley from the Blog Herald, Weblog Empire and b5media.

What do Louis Gray, Thomas Hawk, Duncan Riley, Cyndy and Mona talk.

And that’s just the intro!

It’s not just my entry though, they’re all like that, complete and utter useless gibberish. There is absolutely no way a company could launch a product like this and expect it to be taken seriously, which is why we’re giving props to Cuil today for taking the piss out of themselves. Who knows, it’s that funny it might actually work

Cuil Is Now Taking The Piss Out Of Itself With Cpedia is a post from: The Inquisitr

Numbers aren’t clear at this stage, but it’s believed that around 15-20 bloggers have been dumped in this round.

As we reported previously, b5media is planning on firing all contracted bloggers as part of a reform process headed by former Gawker Editor Elizabeth Spiers.

In related news, despite redirecting what were supposed to be the most heavily trafficked sites at b5media, new b5media blog Crushable has so far failed to impress, both in content and traffic.

Despite the big investment and an initial launch spike, the site has slowly lost rank on Alexa, tracking a 7 day average of 16,507 and a rank yesterday of 26,960.

I give them 6 months now, although that’s probably generous.

b5media Dumps Women Bloggers is a post from: The Inquisitr

Social games company Zynga, long the favored whipping boy of the chattering tech classes, is under fire again for having raised donations for Haiti.

This sordid lets go after Zynga tale again starts in of all places Brazil, where a local publication claimed that Zygna had withheld 50% of the money it had raised in a Haiti Earthquake relief fundraising drive. Oh no went the chattering classes, Zygna has been evil again, so lets go in for the kill.

One small problem: the story isn’t true.

Turns out the “evil” Zygna was doing fundraising to help the people of Haiti BEFORE the earthquake in a “seeds for Haiti” program. 50% of money spent on virtual seeds in Farmville were donated to “organizations in Haiti for the welfare of women and children” and managed to raise $1.2 million. The split was also noted clearly in the promotional material for the drive.

Of note, that’s 50% of income under the program going direct to Haiti, which is a high figure given how many companies offer 5 cents or 10c for every item purchased in donations to various causes.

For the actual Haiti Earthquake relief fund, 100% of all donations went to Haiti: $1.5 million in 5 days.

I’m no particularly huge fan of Zynga, but this is a company that has done extremely well in the space they operate. Instead of being held up as a great example of how startups can make money and succeed, they continue to be targeted, seemingly by those jealous of their success. Lets hope for the chattering classes that Zynga doesn’t use some of their profit on defamation lawyers

Zynga Tries To Do The Right Thing, Gets Whipped Anyway is a post from: The Inquisitr

A man in the United Kingdom has avoided jail time on assault charges because the judge decided he should be let off because he was religious.

Shamso Miah attacked another man in a London bank after the two argued about who was next in line. Witnesses and CTV showed Miah attacking the other man both inside and outside the bank.

According to the BBC, Judge Cherie Booth, the wife of former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair, told Miah that violence had to be taken seriously, but said she would suspend his prison sentence because he was a religious person. She helpfully added “You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behavior.”

Quite rightly the UK National Secular Society has complained to the appropriate Government body that the decision was unjust and discriminatory.

Being Religious Now Gets You Off Assault Charges In The UK is a post from: The Inquisitr

South Australia has become the first Australian state to implement internet censorship, targeting political speech that may be negative towards the Government.

As on January 6, 2010, it has become illegal in South Australia to post political comment online in that State regarding the coming State Election unless that person provides their full name and postcode.

Local media reports that the law applies to blogs and media sites, and may also apply to Twitter, Facebook, and even talkback radio.

South Australian Attorney General Michael Atkinson, best known across Australia as the man alone continues to block R18+ ratings for computer games, told the ABC that the move (and we’re not making this up) is about ensuring the public’s right to know “who’s making a comment during an election period.”

Previous state and federal laws in Australia have required those writing to newspapers to be identified, but those laws have never extended to the internet, or mediums such as talkback radio.

What the South Australian Government hasn’t explained is how they would enforce this law: while local media companies would be forced to comply, the law only extents to comment made in South Australia, a state that’s hardly very well know for web hosting. Whether such laws would extend to comment made by a resident on a site hosted outside of South Australia isn’t clear from reports, but it certainly wouldn’t extend to non South Australian residents.

Sadly for residents of South Australia, the laws were passed with the full support of the Opposition Liberal Party, giving voters limited choices at the ballot box.

South Australia Implements Internet Censorship On Political Speech is a post from: The Inquisitr

Religious fundamentalism in the United States has long resulted in books being banned in schools, but a decision by one school district to ban dictionaries takes the lunacy to new levels.

The Menifee Union School District in California has temporarily banned all copies of the 10th edition of Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary after it was discovered the dictionary defined oral sex.

The ban came following a parent complaint, and the District is now considering a permanent ban due to the “sexually graphic” entry. But it gets better: a spokesman quoted by Care2.com said “It’s hard to sit and read the dictionary, but we’ll be looking to find other things of a graphic nature.”

Yes, you read that right: they’re going to trawl the dictionary for more definitions that OMG happen to refer to sex….in a dictionary, a book which has as its purpose the definition, and correct spelling of words.

On one hand they haven’t started burning the banned copies yet, but this sort of State imposed censorship of something as benign and essential to language as a bog-standard dictionary has all the hallmarks of Nazi Germany, complete with Orwellian overtones. Land of the free indeed.

School Bans Dictionaries Due To Definition Of Oral Sex is a post from: The Inquisitr

I’ve never claimed my video skills were brilliant, but an anonymous user by the name of the Young Twats has added a mix (including parts of our video) to YouTube that goes even further in not only proving the Young Turks racism, but also how they contradict themselves. It’s long, but it’s worth it if you’re interested as to why The Young Turks are America’s most hypocritical, and at times racist radio and YouTube show.

I don’t have permission, but a repeat from the sidebar which is referred to in the video. Given they used our footage, and the intent of this post, I’d hope there’s no problems in the repost:

The Young Turks did a segment on a KFC ad in Australia, they classified as Racist

What they failed to see, In their rush to claim racism,
They projected their own thoughts and biasism
onto an entire nation.

Even though they tried to back peddle and say it was KFC, they were after,
They actually created a demagoguery and caused the threads to erupt into a feeding frenzy from both sides.

The other interesting things are;
They had no connection to any part of this video.
They mix up so many things, it turned into a non sequitir.
They did not do any research.
They, themselves, acted so overly anti-racist, that they actually were racist to the West Indians.
They cherry picked a local ad, from a different continent, from a different culture, from a game they do not know about or play, took it out of context, added a racial context, and then they broadcasted it to the very people that would take offence.

They, themselves, perpetrated racial hatred
And perpetuated it, by leaving it on their channel, twice
When Australia had taken the ad off air, straight away!

The end result is; They effectively censored the Australian media, by claiming it used a stereotype, that only exists in the US.
In other words,
They forced their culture upon another culture.

EXACT QUOTE FROM KFC:
But in a statement yesterday, KFC Australia said the ad had been “misinterpreted by a segment of people in the US”.

“It is a light-hearted reference to the West Indian cricket team,” the statement read.

“The ad was reproduced online in the US without KFC’s permission, where we are told a culturally based stereotype exists, leading to the incorrect assertion of racism.

“We unequivocally condemn discrimination of any type and have a proud history as one of the world’s leading employers for diversity.”

Enjoy:

The Racist Young Turks: Round Two is a post from: The Inquisitr

As we reported yesterday, Google is undergoing a baptism by fire since launching the Nexus One, with crappy customer support, faulty phones, and very unhappy customers.

Dare I say we saw this happening? January 5 ::…this is a ho hum announcement from Google for a product that could easily become Google’s first major failure of the new decade. They say that Google is becoming more Microsoft like, and the Nexus One proves it.”

24 hours after the news of the problems broke online, things aren’t getting better for Google. The faults keep getting longer, although given this is a phone made by HTC, are they really that surprising? At a quick glance, fault reports currently include spotty or no 3G in areas with ample 3G coverage, faulty screens (visually), touch screen issues, overheating, faulty microphones, bluetooth connection issues, OS issues, software issues, and more.

But that’s not the end of it, because there are also reports of issues with the ordering site for the phone, multiple complaints of being unable to obtain customer service, and a report that developers still don’t have an SDK for the version of Android shipped with the phone, so potentially apps won’t work with the Nexus One as well.

Actually, I’m being unkind…. to Microsoft; not even Microsoft could deliver such a massive balls up in 2010 as Google has with the Nexus One (sure, they have in the past, but they’ve mostly learned from their mistakes.)

The big question now is just how bad is the phone, and could there be a Nexus One recall coming? Sure, no phone ever ships without the occasional fault in the odd unit, but this would appear to be far more than the odd broken phone.

Looks Like The Nexus One Is A Complete Balls Up: Are We Really Surprised? is a post from: The Inquisitr

The long march by some ignorant American’s who believe that there is no culture in this world other than their own continues with allegations that an Australian KFC is racist.

The ad shows an Australian fan offering KFC to a crowd of West Indies supporters at a cricket match. The fan states “Need a tip when you’re stuck in an awkward situation?” followed by the fan saying “too easy” as he passes around the chicken.

The ad, part of KFC’s “Cricket Survival Guide” promotional series, was played during the recent Australia vs West Indies test matches. The West Indies are currently touring Australia.

The allegations of racism come from the American idea that black people like fried chicken, therefore a white person offering black people fried chicken is racist. That might be true in the United States, but it’s a concept that is completely foreign to people outside of the United States, let alone people in Australia.

As one comment highlighted on The Huffington Post points out:

This ad was shown during cricket matches between Australia and the West Indies. If England had been playing at the time, the ad would have shown the bloke feeding chicken to the Barmy Army to make them sit down and shut up.

Cultural context though is lost on some grade A idiots, like Jack Sheperd at Buzz Feed or Kiran Aditham at Media Bistro, both of who attack the ad as being racist through their own myopic and ignorant American cultural glasses.

I wonder though whether this idea of black people liking fried chicken says far more about the endemic racism in the United States than it says about this ad. This is a stereotype after all that comes from the United States from Americans, including those who seek to call racism in a light hearted ad made for an Australian audience.

For the record I did a quick straw poll; not one person I asked here in Australia had any idea of the American stereotype of black people and fried chicken. Those that saw the ad thought nothing of it; indeed, the hundreds of thousands of Australian’s who will attend cricket matches this summer (Pakistan is touring along with the West Indies), and the millions more who’ll watch on TV attest that there is no racist overtones in this context at all.

The so-called racist KFC ad as follows:

Here We Go Again: Australian KFC Ad Deemed Racist By Ignorant Americans is a post from: The Inquisitr

A Chicago man who was suffering from a diabetic seizure in April was tasered 11 times by a police officer after his flailing arm struck the officer.

Prospero Lassi claims in a lawsuit that ambulance officers (EMTs) and police arrived at his home April 9 after his room mate call 911 for help with his seizure.

The EMTs recognized the seriousness of the situation, and asked the police to help move Lassi, who according to the suit was “not alert and could not move his body.” While helping move Lassi, the officer was struck (despite being told upfront that Lassi was unconscious) and that’s when the tasering started.

One tasering might be considered an automatic self defense response, but the office didn’t stop at one; despite Lassi being unconscious, the office tased him a staggering 11 times over the course of one minute.

Tasering anyone 11 times isn’t good for their health, but it’s even worse when they’re a diabetic: Lassi stayed in hospital five days, was unable to work for three months, and has suffered permanent neurological damage due to the tasering he received.

According to Courthouse News, Lassi was “never cited, arrested, or charged with any crime.” Lassi is seeking punitive damages for battery, excessive force, and failure to intervene.

Sadly from other reports, the officer was never stood down or investigated for his savage attack.

Chicago Police Taser Unconscious Man Having A Diabetic Seizure 11 Times is a post from: The Inquisitr

In a case from 2007 that’s only recently getting some attention, an Irvine, California policeman was found not guilty of ejaculating on a stripper he had pulled over, not because he didn’t ejaculate on her, but because the jury found “she got what she wanted.”

The facts going into court were fairly clear: policeman David Alex Park admitted getting out his manhood and spilling his beans so to speak over the stripper following a traffic stop, the stripper made the original complaint, and DNA evidence in the car proved Park has indeed sprayed the stripper and the car.

Park’s lawyer claimed in his defense that she made the married patrolman make the mess, according to a local report, because “after all, she was on her way home from work as a dancer at Captain Cream Cabaret.”

“She got what she wanted,” the lawyer claimed. “She’s an overtly sexual person.”

A jury of elderly white people agreed, and dismissed three felony charges that he’d used his badge to win sexual favors during the December 2004 traffic stop.

The local police department though was wise enough to realize that justice may not have been fully served: they paid the stripper $400,000 in compensation rather that have to face a civil case over the incident.

(Image and details via OCWeekly/ Scienceblogs)

In California It’s Legal For A Policeman To Ejaculate On Strippers In The Line Of Duty is a post from: The Inquisitr

Security company Symantec must be following the lead from Copenhagen and ramping up the alarmism this Christmas to sell more software with a new study that claims searching for porn is popular with children aged seven and under.

The survey found that porn was the fourth most popular search term for children seven years and under, behind YouTube, but ahead of sites such as Disney or Nickelodeon. It also found that porn and sex were popular search terms for tweens and teenagers.

I don’t dispute that older kiddies might be searching for porn, but seven or six year old kids to the point that it’s the fourth most popular search term in the age group? The suggestion isn’t just dumb, it’s (and pardon the swearing) complete and utter bullshit.

First, it presumes that lots of seven, six and even five year olds are using search engines to begin with. Second, it also then presumes that they know what porn is (both as a concept and actual word.)

As the father of a seven year old, let me say simply that although it’s not impossible that a very small number of children seven and under might be searching for porn, the idea that it’s common is completely and utterly in the realms of fantasy. A responsible parent of a child that young will not have taught their kids about porn; they might have taught them to be aware of “naughty pictures” online, but not much else. I also wouldn’t let my son use a search engine without supervision at his age in a billion years to begin with; I even check his YouTube searches before he starts looking at videos, and if I’m not next to him while he’s on the computer, I’m in ear shot so I know exactly what’s going on.

I’d rip the study/ survey/ research (whatever it is) but the methodology isn’t disclosed; my guess is that it’s a small sample from among their installed user base and not representative by any stretch. Further, I’d guess that the quality control of the logged in user on the sample computers isn’t there; that is, although thinking a seven or six year old might be on at the time, an older child or adult was actually on.

Either way, it’s complete bollocks. Don’t believe me? they also claim “Kids under the age of seven are conducting searches for P2P sites like Limewire and Mininova.” How many five and six year olds are going to know what Limewire or Mininova are? Seriously? These results were compiled by single, nerdy men who have never had children, because no one else in their sane mind could publish crap like this, at least not with a straight face.

(study via Mashable.)

Symantec Claims Kids 7 And Under Regularly Search For Porn. Symantec Is Full Of Shit is a post from: The Inquisitr

The Australian Government today confirmed that it would proceed with broadscale internet censorship in Australia following a trial into ISP based internet filtering.

Delivered pre-Christmas so as to minimize debate on the plan, Reichsminister for censorship Stephen Conroy spun the decision by selectively quoting parts of the trial report. Conroy claimed among other things that banned material “can be done with 100 per cent accuracy and negligible impact on internet speed” and that the filter would apply to all RC (Refused Classification) content.

It’s an interesting line, because the reports findings don’t actually say that the filtering of RC content is either 100% accurate nor would it necessarily have a “negligible” affect on internet speeds (we’ll get to “negligible” in a moment.)

Filtering accuracy: an inconvenient truth

The study asked the nine ISP’s to trial several forms of internet filtering. The first test was based on the flawed ACMA blacklist of approximately 2,000 sites, which as we know from earlier in the year blocks dentists, poker sites, and other legal sites along with illegal sites. The second was based on a broader “child safe” filter which attempted to filter more sites (although the exact figure was not disclosed.)

The tests found that 100% accuracy was obtained with the ACMA blacklist only, a list of 2,000 odd sites that would only be a small sample of sites blocked under the scheme.

The tests found that when the list was expanded to the bigger child safe list, that accuracy dropped to between 78.8% and 84.6%.

On those results, the study claimed “Enex considers it unlikely that any filter vendor would achieve 100 percent blocking of the URLs inappropriate for children without significant over-blocking of the innocuous URLs.”

Notably a full list under the implementation of censorship would be significantly larger than what is currently in the blacklist, a point even Conroy concedes. Depending on the estimation, the real world list could total anywhere from 20,000 sites to hundreds of thousands. So how can you claim a future filter is 100% accurate when the report itself notes that accuracy will never be 100% on a bigger list?

What Is Actually Being Filtered?

While Stephen Conroy claims the filter will apply to RC content, the report didn’t just consider RC content, and actually goes as far as noting that the blacklist includes “prohibited” content.

The Online Content Scheme (the Scheme) introduced in 2000 under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 (Cth) (the BSA), regulates content on the internet. The Scheme is contained chiefly in Schedules 5 and 7 of the BSA. Under the BSA, ‘prohibited content’ and ‘potential prohibited content’ include content that has been classified or is likely to be classified Refused Classification under the National Classification Scheme.

Better still, the report actually discusses how prohibited content will be added to the blacklist:

Where content is not hosted in Australia and is prohibited, ACMA will notify the content to the suppliers of approved filters so that access to the content using such filters can be blocked.

It should be noted that prohibited content in Australia is broader that RC alone; content may be prohibited if it doesn’t adequately have age verification for example.

So which is it Senator Conroy? And if the study was accurate, why wasn’t it testing RC content alone? At the same time if the report is based on Government specs, why does it talk about prohibited content?

Define Negligible?

The most blatant sign of bias in the terms of the study is how the Government, and by extension the study decided to define negligible. The report defines it as such:

Negligible impact on network performance

10% and below: individual service performance impact is negligible to the end-user. It would be difficult for the test to distinguish the impact of the filter from any other factor potentially affecting network performance.

Yes, a drop in speed of 9% is considered negligible in a country where internet speeds are at times third world.

But here’s where it gets better: the findings on speed were all over the place, with some results even questioned by the study, like the ISP who reported that speeds were 17.32% FASTER with the filter (WTF doesn’t begin to explain it.)

Some highlights: the biggest decrease in speed is reported to be 44.15%, with other ISP’s reporting speed cuts in various tests of 36.45% and 27.2%. A range of results came in at 0-10%, with some others reporting small increases on some tests (where a proxy to deliver some data was used.) But even those reporting increases of speeds in some tests also reported decreases in others, for example participant 9 reported a small increase in streaming speeds, but a 10% decline in web page speeds.

While you can concede that the average decreased speeds aren’t as bad as some may have feared, to suggest that the results were negligible is grossly disingenuous; Wikipedia defines the word as referring “to the quantities so small that they can be ignored (neglected) when studying the larger effect.”

Circumvention, and a ban on Proxies?

The report also details the circumvention of blocked sites. It notes in its summary that “A technically competent user could, if they wished, circumvent the filtering technology.” The stats: on the ACMA blacklist, circumvention was blocked at a range of a pathetic 8.1% to a high of only 16.2%. The broader list (with the tests of the broader filter being opt-in by customers..so basically those wanting to block stuff from their kiddies to begin with) saw results from 37.8% to 94.5%.

The note there is that it’s the stuff on the blacklist (in theory currently, and the expanded version) which is what the Government really wants to block (dentists with kiddie porn or something like that.) That the best result of circumvention blocking was 16.2% on the hard stuff really highlights what a sad and pathetic joke the filter is; those who want to look at this stuff will still be able to and the filter isn’t going to stop them, and that’s before we consider that the report notes that they can’t block IM or P2P.

But the other strange assumption in the report is that circumvention is only in the domain of a “technically competent user,” a suggestion that implies that it is somehow difficult to use a proxy to bypass the filter. The problem is that it’s not. I ran proxies a few years back for a brief time, and the most popular site accessed via my proxies (this is before Facebook got big) was MySpace: proxies are popularly used by non-technical people to bypass work and school filters, often by kiddies, and you don’t need to be a genius to use one; type proxy into Google, or visit a directory site like Proxy.org.

Likewise the report then seems to accept that proxies aren’t that hard to use to some degree, and this is where it gets into scary territory: the report suggests that proxies should be banned:

Filtering of additional categories of content enabled ISPs to implement measures which made some common circumvention techniques difficult. For example, a third party website which hides the origin of the requested content (proxy site) can be included in a wider list of URLs to be blocked.

and on the broader (not ACMA blacklist) test that delivered better anti-circumvention results, the study notes that proxies were being filtered as part of the test:

The testing for circumvention generally indicates that filtering of additional categories of content, enabled ISPs to implement measures which made some circumvention techniques more difficult to use. For example many commercial lists have a “proxy” category; proxies are a common form of filter circumvention.

Anyone for adult computer games?

Conroy claims that adult computer games will not be initially included in the filter as the Australian Government has started “a public consultation process into whether there should be an R18+ classification category for computer games.

One small problem with that: censorship power in Australia resides with the States. All the states have to agree to support an R18+ rating for computer games for any Federal application, and South Australia isn’t about to change its mind. WA has also banned possession of RC computer games as well, so there’s no surety that the WA Government would support a change either.

Conclusion

It’s a sad day for freedom of speech in Australia when the Government delivers a slanted report that when you actually read it doesn’t back everything it is claiming. It’s not dissimilar to Iran: you don’t get the result you want so you ignore the results you don’t want, you stuff the boxes in other places, and you deliver a result that was always predetermined to begin with.

Conroy claims again that the filter is all about kiddie porn (which is already illegal to view and host anyway) but at the same time will ban euthanasia and abortion sites, along with adult computer games as well. The dark clouds of totalitarianism are descending on Australia; remember, history shows that Governments who start on the road to censorship usually expand the regime with time. The can is open now, and who knows when the madness might end.

Australia Confirms Censorship Plans, Tells Fibs On The Filtering Trial is a post from: The Inquisitr

Software giant Microsoft has long punished legitimate users in an effort to stop the piracy of its software, but apparently Microsoft now thinks it’s ok to steal….at least when they do it.

Microblogging service Plurk, which has become Asia’s most popular microblogging platform is pissed, and rightly so, because Microsoft not only copied their look for a competing product launched recently in China, they actually lifted 80% of the code as well.

The Plurk team writes “We’re still in shock asking why Microsoft would even stoop to this level of willfully plagiarizing a young and innovative upstart’s work rather than reach out to us or innovate on their own terms. Of course, it just hits that much closer to home when all your years of hard work and effort to create something unique are stolen so brazenly. All the more ironic considering Microsoft has often been leading the charge on fighting for stronger IP laws and combating software piracy in China.”

More on the Plurk blog here; you’d say on face value that this is a clear case of piracy from Microsoft, and the screen shots and details back that up.

But what does it say about Microsoft? Here’s a company that recently banned modded XBox 360′s from XBox Live because they could in theory be used to run pirated software, despite the mod practice being completely legal in places like Australia. Microsoft hits with a big stick, but like any bully they don’t practice what they preach.

Microsoft Leads By Example, Steals Plurk Code is a post from: The Inquisitr

That wonderful fact checking at News Corp (the same quality checking that saw me named by News Corp as having hacked the site of the Australian Prime minister) has struck again, and this time it’s at the Wall Street Journal.

The WSJ has been forced to pull a column on the basis that it has discovered nearly one month after it was published that not only was the content plagiarized, it also contained made up names for quotes, ala the Jayson Blair scandal at the New York Times.

The Journal writes

A Nov. 10 “New Global Indian” online column by New York City freelance writer Mona Sarika has been found to contain information that was plagiarized from several publications, including the Washington Post, Little India, India Today and San Francisco magazine. In the column, “Homeward Bound,” about H-1B visa holders returning to India, Ms. Sarika also re-used direct quotes from other publications, without attribution, and changed the original speakers’ names to individuals who appear to be fabricated. The column is the only work by Ms. Sarika to be published by the Journal, and it has been removed from the Journal’s Web sites.

Mistakes do happen to the best of publications, but it’s more than a little rich for News Corp to constantly suggest that their editorial and checking procedures are beyond reproach when even their most esteemed publication gets it wrong on occasion.

10 points to the first person to bring this up against News Corp employees when they play the “we’re perfect” card at a future of media type conference.

News Corp Fact Checking Strikes Again: WSJ In Plagiarism Scandal is a post from: The Inquisitr

Proving that world Soccer is an ongoing joke, FIFA (the International Federation of Association Football) is threatening that Chile will face World Cup Expulsion over a minor league issue in the country.

The drama is due to the most unlikely cause: Chilean club Rangers has taken legal action against the Chilean National League after they were dropped to the secondary league following a points penalty for fielding six foreign players, vs the league limit of five.

What should just be a local dispute was escalated into an international one of the grounds that FIFA believes that it is beyond local laws; specifically (and we’re not making this up), FIFA does not approve of civil or government intervention in footballing matters.

You read that right: FIFA doesn’t care a rats arse about local law, breach of contracts, or anything similar. But better still, the Chilean National Football (Soccer) body isn’t behind the legal action: a club is, but because a club is taking action under local law, Chile may be thrown out of FIFA and banned from the World Cup.

“We beseech your association to call on your affiliated club… to withdraw the case it took to the Chilean courts of justice within the next 72 hours or… announce the pertinent sanctions against your affiliated club,” a FIFA letter sent to Chile’s Football Association said according to Reuters.

Being good local citizens, the Chilean Football Association has suspended play in its postseason playoffs until the court case is decided.

FIFA Proves That World Soccer Is A Joke Again: Chile World Cup Expulsion Likely is a post from: The Inquisitr

AOL today has launched a “new brand identity for its future as an independent company” that includes among other things the letters AOL superimposed on a fish.

In what has to be an April fools day joke seriously late, or the loss of a serious bet, AOL is now Aol. (that’s not the end of a sentence, it’s actually “Aol.”) with the very basic type face (anyone for Arial) superimposed on a variety of images.

The images include a gold fish (as mentioned,) a devil/ gnarly hand gesture, some sort of swirling thing that looks like it was designed in MS Paint, something purple that may be fish eggs (is caviar bright purple??), some sort of possessed head come LSD trip, and last but not least (and bringing home the joke) a squiggle.

According to an AOL press release, the new logo(s) are simple, confident logotype, revealed by ever-changing images that are a “consistent logo with countless ways to reveal.” Yeah, if you think that sounds like drugs at play, you’re not the only one thinking that.

The new logo(s) will be rolled out across AOL (sorry, Aol.) properties December 10.

What do you think? Is this someone’s idea of a bad joke, or are we being too harsh? let us know in the comments.

AOL Loses Serious Bet, Launches New Joke Logos is a post from: The Inquisitr