I found this story... I can't help but laugh but poor guy.
It's worth the read, essentially he came out even though he's straight... read it in his words.
Str8 playin'
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Sunday, August 15, 2010
The real Avatar: body transfer turns men into girls - life - 13 May 2010 - New Scientist
I more-or-less stumbled upon this article.
Essentially, the study says that if you're transported in a virtual world, into the avatar of a woman than you will identify with that body. How odd.
The gaming world has been promising virtual reality for a very long time... I've yet to see it deliver even remotely in the modern lounge room.
The real Avatar: body transfer turns men into girls - life - 13 May 2010 - New Scientist
Essentially, the study says that if you're transported in a virtual world, into the avatar of a woman than you will identify with that body. How odd.
The gaming world has been promising virtual reality for a very long time... I've yet to see it deliver even remotely in the modern lounge room.
The real Avatar: body transfer turns men into girls - life - 13 May 2010 - New Scientist
Friday, August 6, 2010
Same-sex Australian marriages even blocked overseas!?
So, one of the blogs I follow is called The Gay Marriage Blog. They posted an article today entitled "MARRIAGES ABROAD THWARTED"
It brought to my attention an issue I was completely unaware of. I always thought that while my country didn't support same-sex marriage, or recognise those performed overseas, that I always had the option of marrying overseas in a more progressive country... it seems I was wrong.
It was a while ago that I wrote my letter to the government in support of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 (supporting the marriage definition changing to include same-sex couples) but it seems that while over 11,000 submissions supported the bill, it was rejected:
I guess no surprises there but when you read "Marriage Equality Report" in full, you find that the reasons were primarily religious-based. On the bright side, one of the recommendations out of this report was that Certificates of Non-Impediment be granted to same-sex couples as with opposite sex couples. It turns out a Certificate of Non-Impediment needs to be granted by your home country to allow a marriage to occur overseas and since around 2005, the government has refused to supply the certificates on the basis that same-sex marriage is not legal in Australia! The report recommends this practice be stopped.
On a side note, you can see a story back in January 2006 where such a couple was impacted here --> "Gays hit in overseas nuptial bid" where the couple were informed that "Following the advice of the Australian Attorney-General's Department we herewith certify that Australian law does not allow the issue of a Certificate of No Impediment to Marriage to persons wishing to enter into a same-sex marriage."
So, in a story posted three days ago entitled "Overseas gay weddings will remain blocked to Australians", rather than support this recommendation, the Labor "Government informed marriage equality advocates that it has decided not to remove the ban ... on issuing Australians in same-sex relationships with the documents they need to marry overseas, called Certificates of Non-Impediment to Marriage or CNIs."
Will we ever see the day where we'll be able to legitimately marry? :(
It brought to my attention an issue I was completely unaware of. I always thought that while my country didn't support same-sex marriage, or recognise those performed overseas, that I always had the option of marrying overseas in a more progressive country... it seems I was wrong.
It was a while ago that I wrote my letter to the government in support of the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009 (supporting the marriage definition changing to include same-sex couples) but it seems that while over 11,000 submissions supported the bill, it was rejected:
"While the committee agrees that the current definition of 'marriage' ... is appropriate, other types of relationships play an important part in Australian society and deserve recognition. For this reason, the committee’s recommendation not to alter the definition of marriage should not be taken as a lack of support for same-sex couples. However, the committee considers that the current definition is a clear and well-recognised legal term which should be preserved. The committee recommends that the Bill not be passed."
I guess no surprises there but when you read "Marriage Equality Report" in full, you find that the reasons were primarily religious-based. On the bright side, one of the recommendations out of this report was that Certificates of Non-Impediment be granted to same-sex couples as with opposite sex couples. It turns out a Certificate of Non-Impediment needs to be granted by your home country to allow a marriage to occur overseas and since around 2005, the government has refused to supply the certificates on the basis that same-sex marriage is not legal in Australia! The report recommends this practice be stopped.
On a side note, you can see a story back in January 2006 where such a couple was impacted here --> "Gays hit in overseas nuptial bid" where the couple were informed that "Following the advice of the Australian Attorney-General's Department we herewith certify that Australian law does not allow the issue of a Certificate of No Impediment to Marriage to persons wishing to enter into a same-sex marriage."
So, in a story posted three days ago entitled "Overseas gay weddings will remain blocked to Australians", rather than support this recommendation, the Labor "Government informed marriage equality advocates that it has decided not to remove the ban ... on issuing Australians in same-sex relationships with the documents they need to marry overseas, called Certificates of Non-Impediment to Marriage or CNIs."
Will we ever see the day where we'll be able to legitimately marry? :(
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
5 Ways around the filter in 2 minutes
I definitely do not support an internet filter for Australia.
I saw the Family First party the other day spouting how great it was going to be. Lets face it, only ignorant people believe such a filter will achieve anything productive. The representative clearly didn't know what she was talking about in regard to a whole range of topics though but that's not surprising.
So, if anything, this video shows just how ridiculous the filtering efforts are:
See the related article here:
http://openinternet.com.au/2010/08/04/5-ways-around-the-filter-in-2-minutes-video/
I think that if they can legitimately, and that's the key word, find sites that need to be blocked then that should be taken up with the service providers hosting such sites but I'd like to see what the criteria is for such banning.
You can check out the leaked blacklist here -->
http://file.wikileaks.org/file/acma-secret-blacklist-aug-2008.txt You'll see that there are a lot of perfectly legitimate sites being blacklisted here.
I must admit, it's an interesting list and apparently only a portion of those sites proposed.
It's all very very bad.
I saw the Family First party the other day spouting how great it was going to be. Lets face it, only ignorant people believe such a filter will achieve anything productive. The representative clearly didn't know what she was talking about in regard to a whole range of topics though but that's not surprising.
So, if anything, this video shows just how ridiculous the filtering efforts are:
See the related article here:
http://openinternet.com.au/2010/08/04/5-ways-around-the-filter-in-2-minutes-video/
I think that if they can legitimately, and that's the key word, find sites that need to be blocked then that should be taken up with the service providers hosting such sites but I'd like to see what the criteria is for such banning.
You can check out the leaked blacklist here -->
http://file.wikileaks.org/file/acma-secret-blacklist-aug-2008.txt You'll see that there are a lot of perfectly legitimate sites being blacklisted here.
I must admit, it's an interesting list and apparently only a portion of those sites proposed.
It's all very very bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)