People are stupid.

But seriously, there is a 75% chance that your child could be stupid, obtuse or otherwise 'unaware' of subtle hints in conversation, body language, or even silence.

It's interesting to see how many people don't pick up on tactful, often repeated hints in conversation, but are then upset when one is finally forced to be completely blunt in order to get the message across. The most common of these occurrences is when yours truly is subjected to unwanted attention (in the form of flirtatious remarks) from members of the female gender who are not his girlfriend. Despite subtle hinting that this attention is neither appropriate or enjoyable, it is very rare that the culprit will pick up on these. In one case it was not difficult to say outright that the actions were doing more harm to the friendship than good, and thankfully unnamed other reacted swiftly and amiably.

In another case however, despite oft-repeated hints that the flirting was not welcome, it took an outright insult to quell the flow of what is commonly known as 'hitting on'. Trust me, I don't mind being hit on, I just have one requirement: that you are my partner. It is a lot cuter and a lot less awkward for friendships if it is only the partner that makes those flirtatious remarks - because let's face it, the partner is the only person you should be wanting to hear those remarks from.

This is not an isolated case. I see kids everywhere unable to pick up on subtle conversation, failing to read between the lines and then blaming another person for their own inattentiveness. This is a global phenomenon, however perhaps it is more noticeable in Adelaide due to our 0.004 degrees of separation.

Rant out.

Freedom! (And its opposite...)

Today I sat my one and only exam for the semester: Property Law. After two hours of grilling questions on such things as leases, easements, fixtures, chattels and the Torrens Title System (shudder), I am free and my first year of university has drawn to an end.



However, this entry isn't to celebrate the sunset of this academic year, although congratulations do go out to all the Year 12s who have sat/are sitting their final exams. Only a little bit left guys and gals! It also isn't a recap, as whilst there have been many moments this year that have been very, very enjoyable, I can't remember them all and they would probably get very boring after a while.



That's the freedom part of this post. Now to the other half.



The big 'thing' at the moment is Rudd's plan to implement filters Australia-wide to keep our little darlings from stumbling across things they shouldn't see until they're much, much older. Unfortunately, Labor changes it's story a little, and now it seems that they're not so much concerned about our little darlings as they are keeping people from accessing child pornography. (1)



This isn't a 'new' issue however, Labor has been throwing it around since they came into power, and it looks like they might finally be on the road to putting the scheme into operation, despite a surprisingly large amount of public outcry. IT Experts are of the opinion that filtering will in fact do a lot more harm than good. Three of Australia's leading ISPs were interviewed by ZDNet.com.au regarding the proposed filter - Telstra Media, iiNet and Internode. Simon Hackett, managing director of Internode, commented (amongst other things) that,
"If the stuff goes a bit wrong it will start blocking other content. The trouble is, the internet's not just web browsers. Other applications that are using the internet may get mistaken for things that are pulling that content and might get blocked or messed with in strange ways..."(2)
Hackett also questioned exactly whose morals were being enforced in this situation, saying quite reasonably,
"Is it [the filtered content] the Federal Government's definition of bad? Is this going to be a white Anglo-Saxon protestant filtering system? Is it going to be a Muslim filtering system? Is it going to be one that doesn't like Scientology? The problem is we live in a world with multiple sets of morality, all of them equally valid."(3)



These are both very important points, not to mention that the filters that are meant to be targeting 'bad' sites could quite possibly block 'good' ones also. Ars Technica recently published an article citing such sources as SAGE-AU (The System Administrators' Guild of Australia) and Labor testing schemes themselves, revealing:
'The System Administrators' Guild of Australia, SAGE-AU, issued a statement again stressing its opposition to Internet filtering on grounds that it simply wouldn't work.'(4)
And,
'The government's own testing has shown that the filters still have serious problems with false positives...'(5)
Moreover, the government seems to be changing its stance on how Australians should react to the suggestions, with Communications Minister Stephen Conroy saying in January of this year that,
'...Internet users would be able to access uncensored material by opting out of the service and that the government would work with industry to ensure the filters did not slow down the service.'(6)
However, more recently Conroy has been arguing for mandatory filter across all Australian households, with Computerworld releasing an article in mid-October including the comment that,
'...advisers to Minister Conroy have told ISPs that Internet content filtering will be mandatory for all users.'(7)



Many critics have likened this to the current system operating in China, where sites such as Google are considered 'illegal', and cyberdissendents are quickly arrested and jailed. This does not seem to be far from the truth, with Conroy doing little to dispel such superstition, especially when he attempted to 'bully' ISP staff, and force them to keep any criticisms of the scheme unheard. (8)



But I believe the major problem with all of this is where it gets personal. Of course I believe that a world without child pornography, most pornography in general, drug information and details on how to construct weapons and explosives of all varieties would be a better place. However, this isn't the 'big picture'. Filters don't work on blocking specific sites unless one is willing to invest a lot of time and money hunting down individual web addresses - and a porn site often has multiple addresses to access it from. Instead, they work on IP addresses. Think of an IP address for a site as the general address for a block of flats; sure, one of the occupants might be a criminal, but you can't barricade the entire block from the outside world because the other tenants are suddenly without access. They are, without a doubt, fucked.
Another way of filtering is to block out keywords; it seems the government would probably use words such as 'naked' 'babies' 'rape' 'molesting' etc.
Consider a psychology student using an online article archive such as JSTOR, writing a paper on the psychological effects of child rape. Anything that could possibly aid them in their learning will be filtered. It's not just this situation, as a law student I am constantly looking up cases for the principles contained within, and often there is a principle that is not entirely related to the case. Should I be looking for a principle - unrelated to sexual incidents - but contained within a sexual harassment or assault case, and there were 'filtered' keywords in the case notes, I couldn't use it. This can be applied across almost every single academic discipline.



And in all honesty, shouldn't it be the parents' responsibility to watch what their children are hunting down on the net? I know there are home filter programs - even free ones - my parents had one for a time. The government is not everyone's nanny, and in pursuing something like this it is eventually the futures of the children they are attempting to protect, that will suffer.






________

(1) The Age [2/1/2008]: http://news.theage.com.au/technology/australias-plans-to-filter-internet-under-fire-20080102-1jwl.html
(2) ZDNet.com.au [30/10/2008]: http://www.zdnet.com.au/insight/communications/soa/ISP-level-content-filtering-won-t-work/0,139023754,339292158,00.htm
(3) See above.
(4) Ars Technica [28/10/2008]: http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20081028-australias-internet-filter-could-legal-content-be-banned-too.html
(5) See above.
(6) The Age [2/1/2008]: http://news.theage.com.au/technology/australias-plans-to-filter-internet-under-fire-20080102-1jwl.html
(7) Computerworld [13/10/2008]: http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;1399635276;fp;16;fpid;0
(8) Sydney Morning Herald [24/10/2008]: http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/biztech/labors-net-gag-worse-than-iran/2008/10/23/1224351430987.html

Absence...

Well, it has been a while, hasn't it?

In fact, 514 days if we're splitting hairs on it. A lot can happen in such a time. I should say, a lot has happened in that time. To give it a quick summary:

I progressed through Year 12 International Baccalaureate with some apprehension. In retrospect it was probably the best choice I could have made; the skills and qualities that I developed have aided me greatly in university (bit of a plot spoiler there) and most of all... Some of it was actually fun. I may sound a little crazy there, but I enjoyed a large amount of my time. That being said, there were days where I wanted to find the nearest hole and quickly dispatch myself in samurai fashion, but as always the good comes with the bad. In the end, I sat my 15 exams (an average of 2.14285714... per subject) and came out of them feeling fairly optimistic. This optimism was repaid with a sterling score of 37/45, the breakdown of which is as follows:
Biology HL: 5/7
Chemistry SL: 6/7
English HL: 6/7
French SL: 5/7
History HL: 6/7
Maths SL: 6/7
Extended Essay: A
ToK: B
[Combined A,B = 3/3]

What was surprising was that my two best subjects (Bio & French) became my two worst, and vice versa (Maths & Chemistry). Nonetheless, this all equated to a TER of 97.6, which managed to get me an offer to study a Bachelor of Laws/Bachelor of International Studies (Double Degree) at the University of Adelaide.

Uni life is... well, fantastic. I didn't really experience uni culture and society per se until my second semester - the first i spent reveling in the ability to piss off from lectures and tutorials and grab a coffee in town, a mere 4 subjects a semester, only 2 of which had exams, and a comfortable 12 contact hours a week.
I also started a new job, having been offered a Shift Manager position just after I finished my exams. I actually work more than I study, with an average 20.5 hours at work a week. Still, the money is nice.
Back to uni: in second semester I decided to be more of a 'uni student'. I was more likely to be found in the UniBar playing pool than my lecture halls (although I only missed tutorials if I had a major clash) and I enjoyed myself a lot more. There wasn't the same amount of stress, although time will tell when it comes to results time (my 1 exam is in a few days). Nevertheless, I met a lot more people, a greater variety of people, and had an absolute ball along the way.
After starting at uni, I eventually hunted down the Adelaide University Rugby Union Football Club (AURUFC) or "the Blacks" for short. I started well, scoring a try against their archrivals, Old Collegians in my first game. The season went well, and I finished up as Best First-Year Player in Reserve (2nd) Grade, as well as being offered a scholarship to Armidale, NSW for a rugby camp in January. This should be fun. Other co-curricular pursuits included running for a position on the Law Students' Society (which I missed due to some deft political maneuvering) and playing pool, drinking, etc.

But by far the biggest impact this past 514 days has been my relationship. Of course, I'm saving the best until last. About 3 posts backwards, my latest 'fling' had drawn to a long, painful close. Repeating cycles of break-up and reconciliation were completely fucking with my schoolwork, my life and my sanity, and so it was ended permanently. Coming out of this relationship there wasn't a whole lot of support, apart from one girl who by chance I had met through the relationship - don't be judgmental, the relationship with 'other' followed its predestined course and ended naturally.
This girl is quite possibly the sweetest thing I have ever known. When she hardly knew me, she listened to my woes, gave me advice, but most importantly, she gave me her friendship unconditionally. We ended up hanging out a bit, and on the 31st August started dating. What followed was, in a word, immense.
I had realised her patience and friendship before we started dating, but in my time with her I have never ever been so happy. Of course, it had its ups and downs, but that's life; the good always comes with the bad, otherwise the good is never noticeable, non? We both made several mistakes, and we both hurt each other a lot, but the most important thing was we loved each other and wanted more than anything to perfect ourselves for each other. Unfortunately yours truly made a mistake he couldn't handle, and without explaining it to the girl, ended the relationship in such a way it appeared her fault. This was just short of a year being together.
However, as someone very close to me said, "When two people are meant to be together the universe will alter their paths so as to become one." Or words to that effect, at least. As fate would have it, our paths did cross again, some two months later. Both of us had done things we regretted immensely, but on the same token, both of us had realised so much about ourselves and each other, that things felt... right.
And here is where the pages are blank, because I am currently with this fantastic girl, and we are writing our own future...

[I'm also writing a book, but that's another story for another time...]

Until I have time to kill.

~Coops