There is a solution, but since it involves nukes we'll never do it.
Well that, and because it's never been tested in a situation even remotely similar to this one, so we have no idea what the actual result would be. Throwing nukes at a problem and just hoping that it gets fixed strikes me as a rather bad idea.
If people willingly buy from a seller that they know is intentionally subverting safety restrictions in order to buy apples at a lower price, then yes, those people do hold a portion of the blame. Sellers respond to consumer demand, so consumers do have an obligation to demand safety. In fact in situations where the sellar is a corporation, consumers are often the only potential source of any ethical behavior.
The ladder example is rather bad, as it isn't like we have rigs blowing up every year. Since it looks like there was some seriously shady stuff going on, and a lot of big mistakes made in the interest of profit, I don't see how this reflects on the public at all. This is the fault of those people who put profit ahead of safety on that rig. The public had no way to know about this since the agency that was supposed to be the watchdog had been subverted by the industry.
It all depends, did the Apple farmer give a very large check to the President of the USA?
Tim S.
And that makes a difference, why? Especially considering that they cut checks to tons of politicians. How does that make them any less responsible for the results of their actions?
I thought there was fairly solid evidence that someone named Jesus was in fact born in Nazareth at about the right time, who became a Rabbi, but there's just nothing to support him actually being anything like the Jesus of the Christian Bible.
So I suppose it would call in to question your value of "existing." Is a basis enough, or do we need an exact match?
IIRC, there's evidence that there were lots of people named Jesus wandering around at that time. No evidence that any of them were the son of God though, although many people were around claiming that as well.
Wow. That post made so little sense, it's difficult to even know where to start. Your example has a single assumption, which isn't actually an assumption. We've seen tons of evidence of canyons and valleys being created by water (rivers and glaciers) on earth. It's not an assumption, it's a verifiable fact. So, I'm not really sure what you think you're proving there, or how it helps your argument. Going to take a closer look at Mars seems like a good thing to do. The fact that they actually found water there is that much more interesting. We can learn a lot from this kind of exploration.
Science makes some very big assumptions about causality. "Similar causes lead to similar effects." Thus far, these assumptions have held up, but if we, for example, unequivocally break the light-speed barrier, science would be turned on its ear.
I believe there are more assumptions made by science, (science being defined as following the scientific method.)
What? That makes no sense. Disproving a scientific hypothesis or theory does not "turn science on its ear". It happens, and the theories are adjusted accordingly. We develop a new theory or revise the existing one to account for the new evidence and continue experimentation and the search for more evidence.
Seems like you're arguing that because it disregards solipsism, it's making some enormous assumption that could be wrong. If it's wrong about that, then it really doesn't matter anyway.
Sometimes people will become so emotionally-invested in a scientific "fact" that they will refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary.
Even if the evidence is gathered by the most rigorous scientific methodologies and the global scientific community as a whole accepts the new fact as an update to the old.
These are some of the most people to talk to, because they think they have science on their side, even though they don't.
Got an example of this? I'm wondering what area of science is so difficult to explain to people. Not saying that there aren't any such areas, just that I can't think of any off the top of my head, at least not any that people have any strong beliefs about.
Would-be "Rationalists" need to identify what they live for, which will not in-itself be a "rational" thing. It won't defy reason or logic or what have you, but it won't be derivable or even based in reason or logic. It'll be an imaginary thing, or an imaginary society, or an imaginary world, or an imaginary person, most likely -- but an imaginary thing worth loving.
The athiests I know all have comic books in their back pockets. They should just fess up where their hearts are, rather than hiding behind the facad of "rationality."
What do you even mean by that? It's not rational to desire a world in which more people could be happy and live in peace? It's not rational to enjoy fictional stories?
Of course if the environment changed drastically, such as through a worldwide nuclear exchange, cockroaches could easily be at the upper end of intelligence on the planet again. Intelligence may give us the ability to adapt nature to our needs, but it also gives us the ability to destroy ourselves. So, while I see your point about intelligence being seen as "more evolved", it's still just one direction and one outcome. It's not necessarily the best one for long-term survival of the species.
Here's the situation as I understand it (someone correct me if I get some of this wrong):
The line of organisms that we're descended from has changed quite a bit over time. Other lines have not changed much because they were sufficiently well-suited to their environment already. The theory of common ancestry says that we're all descended originally from one, or a small handful of the earliest forms of life. As life became more distributed, evolutionary forces shaped the populations in each environment into organisms suited to those environments. In cases where life wasn't suited to survive, it simply didn't.
So all life has been evolving for the same amount of time, but some exhibit more dramatic changes over time, while others continue to thrive in forms rather similar to their ancestors from a a couple billion years ago. Evolution has no ultimate goal, so their is no notion of "more" or "less" evolved. There's that which survives and that which does not. We're not "more evolved", we're just different, and adapted to our own environments.
OTOH, I don't see how a form of primitive life can adapt to so much drastic and regular changes that are over a timespan of 1000 years, while some not so drastic and truly exceptional changes here have almost caused a total extinction of most species over that same timeframe.
When you consider that the overwhelmingly vast majority of species that have ever existed have gone extinct, it's not so surprising anymore. Only those that are adapted well enough to handle the environment get to continue on. Sudden environmental changes can wipe out species pretty easily.
For instance, you'd think "net neutrality" was about giving content a level playing field rather than price controls...
It's only about price controls in the sense that it would prohibit telcos/cable companies from tacking on additional costs to certain content providers.
There are an infinite number of alternatives that CBS could have chosen but its desire to shock and offend is crystal clear in this decision.
I don't think we should take writing advice from someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "infinite."
Well, unless a whole LOT of new words were added to human language without me knowing about it...
Only if by "LOT" you mean "infinite", but then you might be suffering from the same problem as the person writing the complaint.:)
However, the Texans won't fall for it. They take a moment to add up all the money they get from the "evil" federal government, and suddenly they're not so interested in leaving.
I bet once you factor in all the money that comes in via government jobs in the defense and aerospace industries, among others, Texas wouldn't do so well if it seceded.
Look, the right wing wackos aren't claiming that the founding fathers wanted to establish a Christian Theocracy. They're claiming the government was formed using Christian principles, based on the Christian understanding of the world. The intention was that a Christian nation would regard the Church as authoritative on matters of morality, and the Government merely the public servant of the Christian nation. Thus, the Government wasn't supposed to meddle in the affairs of religion ( hence the term, separation of Church and State) as it had in England, where the monarchy had established their own church when the Vatican wouldn't kowtow to a certain monarch. The Puritans were very sensitive to government meddling in religion.
Which is why the 10 commandments are enshrined in law, right? Wait, they're not? Only 3 of them are actually represented in the law? And those 3 are represented in virtually every legal system in the world, regardless of religion? Since when is the church a beacon of morality anyway? Religious people aren't any more moral than non-religious folks. In fact, I suspect they may be less moral, since they regularly make the argument that that without religion, there's nothing to stop them from stealing, raping, and murdering. Christians make this argument all the time when arguing against atheism. Apparently they need a special book to tell them that such things are wrong, and need to know that some invisible father figure is watching them all the time to make sure they don't get out of line. It's rather disturbing.
Further, the claim that "the Church" should be authoritative on anything, requires that there be some specific church or religious group designated as the authority. If that's not establishment of religion, then that phrase has no meaning. Giving such authority to rule on matters of morality is giving a religion power over the people, plain and simple. That's what they had been arguing against! That would be a theocracy! Everything can be tied to morality. We've seen that throughout history. Arguing that this would somehow be different is just unbelievable.
But this notion that the founding fathers never intended the nation to be Christian is a curious one, as many of them were Christians themselves, and openly lamented that if America abandoned Christianity, this "experiment with democracy" would fail. Indeed, as the French revolution(s!) showed, and later Communism in the USSR and China showed, democracies founded on secular principles ultimately fail in their supposed aims, often becoming machines of the very oppression they rail against. Democracy, as the founders understood it, was only suitable for those with the moral principles to employ it virtuously. Which at the time, meant being Christian.
Some of them were deists too, not subscribing to Christian beliefs. They didn't want a nation that was beholden to any religion for its laws. Giving any church such power would ensure that we would see the same kinds of religious persecution that they were trying to avoid! Others were of varying different branches of Christianity that didn't see eye to eye on a lot of issues, and didn't trust each other. They didn't want any religion but their own in charge, and since they couldn't have that, they wanted to make sure that no other religion could have it either.
Oh, my mistake. I thought that your pattern of inventing irrelevant comparisons and opinions to be taken as facts which are irrelevant went right in line with me mentioning an unrelated "filter" in response to your general statements about filters. Perhaps if you want people to stay on topic, you should practice that yourself first, rather than coming across as a hypocritical whiner.
That makes no sense at all in the context of my previous posts. What are you even talking about?
There are tons of such situations, yet even with such limitations, they are taken to be 100% accurate in court.
[citation needed]
You are either lying or ignorant. Go get a ticket. Get up in court and state "There was a faster car passing me, and the reading must have come from him because I was not speeding." The cop will say "he was the one I was aiming at, it's my professional opinion I got the reading from him" and the judge will say "guilty." It's that simple. Yet that's ok with you, but the same thing happening with a filter is somehow objectionable? I don't understand the distinction you are making.
If your defense is that incompetent, then yeah, that'll probably happen. What you should be asking is for all the specific details (which you have a right to do as part of discovery before the case), such as the certification and calibration info for the radar, exact conditions during the incident, such as weather, traffic, officer's position and speed, etc.
When they have to provide actual evidence, the cases can fall apart. Traffic attorneys pick these things apart all the time. Assuming they were actually wrong to begin with, and sometimes even if they were just lazy with their procedures, you can get it dismissed.
You are taking my words in a manner unrelated to their actual meaning and objecting to implications I didn't directly state. The court assumes they are perfect. That's not a declaration they are. You aren't objecting to courts assuming radar detectors are perfect, despite the obvious limitations of them, so why are you whining so much when the same is applied to something like a filter that similarly has limitations as well?
Again, what are you talking about? You still haven't shown a single thing from an Australian official or court that claims 100% effectiveness or even implies that they believe that. Like I said, I'd love to know who actually makes such a claim. They certainly fall under the liar or idiot header.
It should be a rather trivial task to prove that false anyway. Even under essentially ideal conditions, content filters are never 100%, and usually not even close to that. If an image shows up as a result of caching of ads or through a malware issue, it would be pretty easy to show that it is entirely possible for the ads or malware to be missed by the filter.
The radar gun example is not the same thing. They have been overwhelmingly demonstrated to work when used properly. Internet filters have been demonstrated, repeatedly, to be significantly flawed, even when used properly.
You are wrong. I've seen a number of web filters that work great. When you have a white-list web filter, you get things from those sites and nothing else. Have you ever seen one of those that failed? You seem to drift in and out of talking about the specifics of the situation vs theoretical stances. Sure Australia's filter will let things through, but it makes the difference to them of whether it's accidental or purposeful for running across something.
Oh, my mistake. I thought it was understood that I was referring to the type of filter that is actually being used rather than a type that would be utterly infeasible for the purposes of filtering the net for an entire country (aside from, say, N. Korea). White lists are not content filters, they're content source filters.
Australians can think what they want. It doesn't make them right, it just means they can arrest you anyway.
And you can think whatever you like. That doesn't make you right either. Oh, and RADAR is fundamentally flawed. Ever try to get a reading from a motorcycle in front of a large truck? Doesn't work. And two adjacent vehicles will often return the faster speed, even if the slower vehicle is the one being directly aimed at, leading to a report of an incorrect speed for the targeted vehicle.
Like I said, they work when used properly. Thanks for pointing out situations in which they should not be relied upon.
But no, it's obviously perfect, both theoretically and practically, and filters can't ever work, no matter how they are implemented.
Not with the technology we have today, no. White lists are what you fall back on when you realize you can't make a real working content filter. In a case like this white lists are completely unmanageable and not an option.
Depending on how their justice system works, it may be possible to prove that the filter failed by simply determining where the image was downloaded from and then visiting that same link and showing that the image gets displayed again, despite the filter. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see that happen, as we've seen such demonstrations with every filter that's come before.
Like I said, it's like a radar gun. The filter is presumed perfect until you prove otherwise. You've never said anything that contradicts me, just things that agree with me. You just agree violently or change the subject to your opinion about how things should work, rather than my discussion about how things actually work.
Radar guns aren't presumed perfect though, since, as you say, they have well-known weaknesses. If you're in such a situation, you can easily make the argument that the gun should not be relied upon, and you'll likely win in the absence of other evidence against you.
When it comes to internet filters, they should certainly not be relied upon, as it's been shown time and again that they can't reliably block all unwanted content. Anyone that claims it is perfect is a liar or an idiot, since there's never been a content filter shown to actually work properly and completely. Never. So it's just your word that it is presumed perfect. I'd like to see what Australian government officials make that claim, just so I'll have an idea of who to point out as the major problems within the Australian government. Anyone that dumb or corrupt should be called out as such.
What's the point? The point is that if you're making the assumption that porn can't be accidentally viewed in Australia, you need some basis for that assumption. I haven't seen one.
Again, what you think is irrelevant to Australia. If they believe it, it's true. Just like radar speed measures in the US. Unless you can prove the device is broken, it is assumed to be perfect. Perfect is obviously not an obtainable state, yet the courts in the USA have determined that radar speed measure is beyond reproach, unless there is some specific problem with some specific unit which the defendant can prove in a court of law. It's not a logical or realistic state of affairs, but it is the reality of the state of affairs.
This is similar. It doesn't matter if it's true, it just matters if the people who matter believe it to be. That your opinion disagrees with theirs is irrelevant. Their opinion is law, and yours is inconsequential.
The radar gun example is not the same thing. They have been overwhelmingly demonstrated to work when used properly. Internet filters have been demonstrated, repeatedly, to be significantly flawed, even when used properly.
Australians can think what they want. It doesn't make them right, it just means they can arrest you anyway.
Depending on how their justice system works, it may be possible to prove that the filter failed by simply determining where the image was downloaded from and then visiting that same link and showing that the image gets displayed again, despite the filter. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see that happen, as we've seen such demonstrations with every filter that's come before.
I don't consider mere anecdotal evidence to be sufficient to prove that the filter can always prevent an unwanted image from appearing on your screen.
And if you aren't in Australia, your personal opinion about what their legal system should and shouldn't consider is irrelevant. You seem to be arguing about what "should" happen when I'm telling you what *is* happening.
Now you're not making any sense. You said that the filter keeps you from seeing any porn while you're in Australia, but there's really no reason to believe that.
Filters don't work. They never have. You're trying to say that this one does. I'm saying there's no real evidence of that, and given the track record of filtering software, it's going to take more than anecdotal evidence to prove that it works.
What's the point? The point is that if you're making the assumption that porn can't be accidentally viewed in Australia, you need some basis for that assumption. I haven't seen one.
I don't consider mere anecdotal evidence to be sufficient to prove that the filter can always prevent an unwanted image from appearing on your screen. With all the tricks and changes in technology we see on the net, it's just a matter of time before someone figures out how to slip ads or emails past this filter.
Enough to know that banning guns won't solve anything, and that while you can point to a legitimate use for almost anything (i.e. BitTorrent and linux distros), there is no real doubt what the predominate use for certain firearms are.
Predominant use? Do you have any idea how many handguns there are in the US alone? Now how often are they used to kill people? Do the math. They're kept for self defense primarily, and rarely have to actually be fired at another person.
They say they didn't enter with it. The filter prevents them from getting it while there. So they either worked to circumvent the filter for the sole purpose of CP, or they lied on entry.
That assumes that the filter actually works, and we all know that there's really no filter out there that actually does.
I see you haven't read the news over the last few years. Students can't pray in school. A nativity scene can't be displayed in a park during Christmas. The lawsuit over, and the theft of, the cross honoring WWI GI's who died in combat.
Those come off the top of my head, but I can find many, many more. These types of instances happen on a regular basis.
I see you have difficulty in comprehending what you read. Since when are students prohibited from praying in school? Got anything at all to back that up? Of course a nativity scene can't be displayed on public land when the government won't allow other religions to put up displays as well. What's wrong with that? Same goes with the cross. Appeals to tradition seem to be the only defense for such things. I don't have a problem with displays like that, but I do have a problem with the government playing favorites and only allowing some religions to have such displays.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a solution, but since it involves nukes we'll never do it.
Well that, and because it's never been tested in a situation even remotely similar to this one, so we have no idea what the actual result would be. Throwing nukes at a problem and just hoping that it gets fixed strikes me as a rather bad idea.
If people willingly buy from a seller that they know is intentionally subverting safety restrictions in order to buy apples at a lower price, then yes, those people do hold a portion of the blame. Sellers respond to consumer demand, so consumers do have an obligation to demand safety. In fact in situations where the sellar is a corporation, consumers are often the only potential source of any ethical behavior.
The ladder example is rather bad, as it isn't like we have rigs blowing up every year. Since it looks like there was some seriously shady stuff going on, and a lot of big mistakes made in the interest of profit, I don't see how this reflects on the public at all. This is the fault of those people who put profit ahead of safety on that rig. The public had no way to know about this since the agency that was supposed to be the watchdog had been subverted by the industry.
It all depends, did the Apple farmer give a very large check to the President of the USA? Tim S.
And that makes a difference, why? Especially considering that they cut checks to tons of politicians. How does that make them any less responsible for the results of their actions?
And if they instead distill the key messages out of their religion while eliminating the mythology they are cultists.
Huh?
I thought there was fairly solid evidence that someone named Jesus was in fact born in Nazareth at about the right time, who became a Rabbi, but there's just nothing to support him actually being anything like the Jesus of the Christian Bible.
So I suppose it would call in to question your value of "existing." Is a basis enough, or do we need an exact match?
IIRC, there's evidence that there were lots of people named Jesus wandering around at that time. No evidence that any of them were the son of God though, although many people were around claiming that as well.
Wow. That post made so little sense, it's difficult to even know where to start. Your example has a single assumption, which isn't actually an assumption. We've seen tons of evidence of canyons and valleys being created by water (rivers and glaciers) on earth. It's not an assumption, it's a verifiable fact. So, I'm not really sure what you think you're proving there, or how it helps your argument. Going to take a closer look at Mars seems like a good thing to do. The fact that they actually found water there is that much more interesting. We can learn a lot from this kind of exploration.
Science makes some very big assumptions about causality. "Similar causes lead to similar effects." Thus far, these assumptions have held up, but if we, for example, unequivocally break the light-speed barrier, science would be turned on its ear.
I believe there are more assumptions made by science, (science being defined as following the scientific method.)
What? That makes no sense. Disproving a scientific hypothesis or theory does not "turn science on its ear". It happens, and the theories are adjusted accordingly. We develop a new theory or revise the existing one to account for the new evidence and continue experimentation and the search for more evidence.
Seems like you're arguing that because it disregards solipsism, it's making some enormous assumption that could be wrong. If it's wrong about that, then it really doesn't matter anyway.
Sometimes people will become so emotionally-invested in a scientific "fact" that they will refuse to accept any evidence to the contrary.
Even if the evidence is gathered by the most rigorous scientific methodologies and the global scientific community as a whole accepts the new fact as an update to the old.
These are some of the most people to talk to, because they think they have science on their side, even though they don't.
Got an example of this? I'm wondering what area of science is so difficult to explain to people. Not saying that there aren't any such areas, just that I can't think of any off the top of my head, at least not any that people have any strong beliefs about.
Would-be "Rationalists" need to identify what they live for, which will not in-itself be a "rational" thing. It won't defy reason or logic or what have you, but it won't be derivable or even based in reason or logic. It'll be an imaginary thing, or an imaginary society, or an imaginary world, or an imaginary person, most likely -- but an imaginary thing worth loving.
The athiests I know all have comic books in their back pockets. They should just fess up where their hearts are, rather than hiding behind the facad of "rationality."
What do you even mean by that? It's not rational to desire a world in which more people could be happy and live in peace? It's not rational to enjoy fictional stories?
Of course if the environment changed drastically, such as through a worldwide nuclear exchange, cockroaches could easily be at the upper end of intelligence on the planet again. Intelligence may give us the ability to adapt nature to our needs, but it also gives us the ability to destroy ourselves. So, while I see your point about intelligence being seen as "more evolved", it's still just one direction and one outcome. It's not necessarily the best one for long-term survival of the species.
Here's the situation as I understand it (someone correct me if I get some of this wrong):
The line of organisms that we're descended from has changed quite a bit over time. Other lines have not changed much because they were sufficiently well-suited to their environment already. The theory of common ancestry says that we're all descended originally from one, or a small handful of the earliest forms of life. As life became more distributed, evolutionary forces shaped the populations in each environment into organisms suited to those environments. In cases where life wasn't suited to survive, it simply didn't.
So all life has been evolving for the same amount of time, but some exhibit more dramatic changes over time, while others continue to thrive in forms rather similar to their ancestors from a a couple billion years ago. Evolution has no ultimate goal, so their is no notion of "more" or "less" evolved. There's that which survives and that which does not. We're not "more evolved", we're just different, and adapted to our own environments.
OTOH, I don't see how a form of primitive life can adapt to so much drastic and regular changes that are over a timespan of 1000 years, while some not so drastic and truly exceptional changes here have almost caused a total extinction of most species over that same timeframe.
When you consider that the overwhelmingly vast majority of species that have ever existed have gone extinct, it's not so surprising anymore. Only those that are adapted well enough to handle the environment get to continue on. Sudden environmental changes can wipe out species pretty easily.
For instance, you'd think "net neutrality" was about giving content a level playing field rather than price controls...
It's only about price controls in the sense that it would prohibit telcos/cable companies from tacking on additional costs to certain content providers.
There are an infinite number of alternatives that CBS could have chosen but its desire to shock and offend is crystal clear in this decision.
I don't think we should take writing advice from someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "infinite." Well, unless a whole LOT of new words were added to human language without me knowing about it...
Only if by "LOT" you mean "infinite", but then you might be suffering from the same problem as the person writing the complaint. :)
Sure.
However, the Texans won't fall for it. They take a moment to add up all the money they get from the "evil" federal government, and suddenly they're not so interested in leaving.
Except Texas is a donor state, so it get less money from the federal government than what it pays in taxes. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/topic/60.html
I bet once you factor in all the money that comes in via government jobs in the defense and aerospace industries, among others, Texas wouldn't do so well if it seceded.
Look, the right wing wackos aren't claiming that the founding fathers wanted to establish a Christian Theocracy. They're claiming the government was formed using Christian principles, based on the Christian understanding of the world. The intention was that a Christian nation would regard the Church as authoritative on matters of morality, and the Government merely the public servant of the Christian nation. Thus, the Government wasn't supposed to meddle in the affairs of religion ( hence the term, separation of Church and State) as it had in England, where the monarchy had established their own church when the Vatican wouldn't kowtow to a certain monarch. The Puritans were very sensitive to government meddling in religion.
Which is why the 10 commandments are enshrined in law, right? Wait, they're not? Only 3 of them are actually represented in the law? And those 3 are represented in virtually every legal system in the world, regardless of religion? Since when is the church a beacon of morality anyway? Religious people aren't any more moral than non-religious folks. In fact, I suspect they may be less moral, since they regularly make the argument that that without religion, there's nothing to stop them from stealing, raping, and murdering. Christians make this argument all the time when arguing against atheism. Apparently they need a special book to tell them that such things are wrong, and need to know that some invisible father figure is watching them all the time to make sure they don't get out of line. It's rather disturbing.
Further, the claim that "the Church" should be authoritative on anything, requires that there be some specific church or religious group designated as the authority. If that's not establishment of religion, then that phrase has no meaning. Giving such authority to rule on matters of morality is giving a religion power over the people, plain and simple. That's what they had been arguing against! That would be a theocracy! Everything can be tied to morality. We've seen that throughout history. Arguing that this would somehow be different is just unbelievable.
But this notion that the founding fathers never intended the nation to be Christian is a curious one, as many of them were Christians themselves, and openly lamented that if America abandoned Christianity, this "experiment with democracy" would fail. Indeed, as the French revolution(s!) showed, and later Communism in the USSR and China showed, democracies founded on secular principles ultimately fail in their supposed aims, often becoming machines of the very oppression they rail against. Democracy, as the founders understood it, was only suitable for those with the moral principles to employ it virtuously. Which at the time, meant being Christian.
Some of them were deists too, not subscribing to Christian beliefs. They didn't want a nation that was beholden to any religion for its laws. Giving any church such power would ensure that we would see the same kinds of religious persecution that they were trying to avoid! Others were of varying different branches of Christianity that didn't see eye to eye on a lot of issues, and didn't trust each other. They didn't want any religion but their own in charge, and since they couldn't have that, they wanted to make sure that no other religion could have it either.
Oh, my mistake. I thought that your pattern of inventing irrelevant comparisons and opinions to be taken as facts which are irrelevant went right in line with me mentioning an unrelated "filter" in response to your general statements about filters. Perhaps if you want people to stay on topic, you should practice that yourself first, rather than coming across as a hypocritical whiner.
That makes no sense at all in the context of my previous posts. What are you even talking about?
There are tons of such situations, yet even with such limitations, they are taken to be 100% accurate in court.
[citation needed]
You are either lying or ignorant. Go get a ticket. Get up in court and state "There was a faster car passing me, and the reading must have come from him because I was not speeding." The cop will say "he was the one I was aiming at, it's my professional opinion I got the reading from him" and the judge will say "guilty." It's that simple. Yet that's ok with you, but the same thing happening with a filter is somehow objectionable? I don't understand the distinction you are making.
If your defense is that incompetent, then yeah, that'll probably happen. What you should be asking is for all the specific details (which you have a right to do as part of discovery before the case), such as the certification and calibration info for the radar, exact conditions during the incident, such as weather, traffic, officer's position and speed, etc.
When they have to provide actual evidence, the cases can fall apart. Traffic attorneys pick these things apart all the time. Assuming they were actually wrong to begin with, and sometimes even if they were just lazy with their procedures, you can get it dismissed.
You are taking my words in a manner unrelated to their actual meaning and objecting to implications I didn't directly state. The court assumes they are perfect. That's not a declaration they are. You aren't objecting to courts assuming radar detectors are perfect, despite the obvious limitations of them, so why are you whining so much when the same is applied to something like a filter that similarly has limitations as well?
Again, what are you talking about? You still haven't shown a single thing from an Australian official or court that claims 100% effectiveness or even implies that they believe that. Like I said, I'd love to know who actually makes such a claim. They certainly fall under the liar or idiot header.
It should be a rather trivial task to prove that false anyway. Even under essentially ideal conditions, content filters are never 100%, and usually not even close to that. If an image shows up as a result of caching of ads or through a malware issue, it would be pretty easy to show that it is entirely possible for the ads or malware to be missed by the filter.
The radar gun example is not the same thing. They have been overwhelmingly demonstrated to work when used properly. Internet filters have been demonstrated, repeatedly, to be significantly flawed, even when used properly.
You are wrong. I've seen a number of web filters that work great. When you have a white-list web filter, you get things from those sites and nothing else. Have you ever seen one of those that failed? You seem to drift in and out of talking about the specifics of the situation vs theoretical stances. Sure Australia's filter will let things through, but it makes the difference to them of whether it's accidental or purposeful for running across something.
Oh, my mistake. I thought it was understood that I was referring to the type of filter that is actually being used rather than a type that would be utterly infeasible for the purposes of filtering the net for an entire country (aside from, say, N. Korea). White lists are not content filters, they're content source filters.
Australians can think what they want. It doesn't make them right, it just means they can arrest you anyway.
And you can think whatever you like. That doesn't make you right either. Oh, and RADAR is fundamentally flawed. Ever try to get a reading from a motorcycle in front of a large truck? Doesn't work. And two adjacent vehicles will often return the faster speed, even if the slower vehicle is the one being directly aimed at, leading to a report of an incorrect speed for the targeted vehicle.
Like I said, they work when used properly. Thanks for pointing out situations in which they should not be relied upon.
But no, it's obviously perfect, both theoretically and practically, and filters can't ever work, no matter how they are implemented.
Not with the technology we have today, no. White lists are what you fall back on when you realize you can't make a real working content filter. In a case like this white lists are completely unmanageable and not an option.
Depending on how their justice system works, it may be possible to prove that the filter failed by simply determining where the image was downloaded from and then visiting that same link and showing that the image gets displayed again, despite the filter. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see that happen, as we've seen such demonstrations with every filter that's come before.
Like I said, it's like a radar gun. The filter is presumed perfect until you prove otherwise. You've never said anything that contradicts me, just things that agree with me. You just agree violently or change the subject to your opinion about how things should work, rather than my discussion about how things actually work.
Radar guns aren't presumed perfect though, since, as you say, they have well-known weaknesses. If you're in such a situation, you can easily make the argument that the gun should not be relied upon, and you'll likely win in the absence of other evidence against you.
When it comes to internet filters, they should certainly not be relied upon, as it's been shown time and again that they can't reliably block all unwanted content. Anyone that claims it is perfect is a liar or an idiot, since there's never been a content filter shown to actually work properly and completely. Never. So it's just your word that it is presumed perfect. I'd like to see what Australian government officials make that claim, just so I'll have an idea of who to point out as the major problems within the Australian government. Anyone that dumb or corrupt should be called out as such.
What's the point? The point is that if you're making the assumption that porn can't be accidentally viewed in Australia, you need some basis for that assumption. I haven't seen one. Again, what you think is irrelevant to Australia. If they believe it, it's true. Just like radar speed measures in the US. Unless you can prove the device is broken, it is assumed to be perfect. Perfect is obviously not an obtainable state, yet the courts in the USA have determined that radar speed measure is beyond reproach, unless there is some specific problem with some specific unit which the defendant can prove in a court of law. It's not a logical or realistic state of affairs, but it is the reality of the state of affairs. This is similar. It doesn't matter if it's true, it just matters if the people who matter believe it to be. That your opinion disagrees with theirs is irrelevant. Their opinion is law, and yours is inconsequential.
The radar gun example is not the same thing. They have been overwhelmingly demonstrated to work when used properly. Internet filters have been demonstrated, repeatedly, to be significantly flawed, even when used properly.
Australians can think what they want. It doesn't make them right, it just means they can arrest you anyway.
Depending on how their justice system works, it may be possible to prove that the filter failed by simply determining where the image was downloaded from and then visiting that same link and showing that the image gets displayed again, despite the filter. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to see that happen, as we've seen such demonstrations with every filter that's come before.
I don't consider mere anecdotal evidence to be sufficient to prove that the filter can always prevent an unwanted image from appearing on your screen. And if you aren't in Australia, your personal opinion about what their legal system should and shouldn't consider is irrelevant. You seem to be arguing about what "should" happen when I'm telling you what *is* happening.
Now you're not making any sense. You said that the filter keeps you from seeing any porn while you're in Australia, but there's really no reason to believe that.
Filters don't work. They never have. You're trying to say that this one does. I'm saying there's no real evidence of that, and given the track record of filtering software, it's going to take more than anecdotal evidence to prove that it works.
What's the point? The point is that if you're making the assumption that porn can't be accidentally viewed in Australia, you need some basis for that assumption. I haven't seen one.
I don't consider mere anecdotal evidence to be sufficient to prove that the filter can always prevent an unwanted image from appearing on your screen. With all the tricks and changes in technology we see on the net, it's just a matter of time before someone figures out how to slip ads or emails past this filter.
And just what do you know about guns
Enough to know that banning guns won't solve anything, and that while you can point to a legitimate use for almost anything (i.e. BitTorrent and linux distros), there is no real doubt what the predominate use for certain firearms are.
Predominant use? Do you have any idea how many handguns there are in the US alone? Now how often are they used to kill people? Do the math. They're kept for self defense primarily, and rarely have to actually be fired at another person.
They say they didn't enter with it. The filter prevents them from getting it while there. So they either worked to circumvent the filter for the sole purpose of CP, or they lied on entry.
That assumes that the filter actually works, and we all know that there's really no filter out there that actually does.
He should consider himself lucky.
Warning people of a speed trap could be considered obstruction.
How is that obstruction? Obstruction of what? Warning someone to slow down isn't obstructing anything.
I see you haven't read the news over the last few years. Students can't pray in school. A nativity scene can't be displayed in a park during Christmas. The lawsuit over, and the theft of, the cross honoring WWI GI's who died in combat.
Those come off the top of my head, but I can find many, many more. These types of instances happen on a regular basis.
I see you have difficulty in comprehending what you read. Since when are students prohibited from praying in school? Got anything at all to back that up? Of course a nativity scene can't be displayed on public land when the government won't allow other religions to put up displays as well. What's wrong with that? Same goes with the cross. Appeals to tradition seem to be the only defense for such things. I don't have a problem with displays like that, but I do have a problem with the government playing favorites and only allowing some religions to have such displays.