So where's the problem, if you agree detainment and processing are necessary ?
I've already stated the two problems I see. The first is that the detainment conditions are poor. The second is that illegal immigrants are deported if their refugee claims are false. I don't dispute the need for detainment and processing. I don't know where you got the idea that I did.
And I recognise the argument for deporting: if you allow the "queue jumpers" in then there might be a flood of illegal immigrants. I personally have no problem with that scenario. Let them all live in Australia on work visas until they have gained citizenship. I see no value in deporting them.
Do I need to even ask? No. I don't. It's the typical unthinking knee-jerk "M$ is a bunch of stupid poopy-heads and Bill Gate$ eats babies!" panty twsiting that goes on here every time a article about Microsoft gets posted.
And you're pulling the typical unthinking Slashdot bashing "MS is great and Slashdot is sucks and you are all HYPOCRATES [sic]" crap that goes on here every time a newbie with ID 500000+ writes an even slightly anti-MS comment.
By now most of you mods have decided to mod me down as a troll. But take a momet to think about this.
You even did the appeal to mod-points that all the trolls do. Go away. You're just as bad as the anti-Microsoft trolls.
Under Australia's migration law all foreign nationals wishing to travel to Australia must obtain authorisation to enter Australia in the form of a valid Australia visa. People who arrive in Australia without such authorisation are unlawful arrivals (or "illegal entrants"), and Australia's law requires that they be detained.
Whether they are also refugees is something that is determined during detainment.
Now, refugee is a word that can be used outside of a strictly legal context
For example, at 20 June 2002, at the offshore processing centres at Nauru and Manus, 1,446 people have received decisions on their asylum claims, comprising 494 approvals and 952 refusals. For other nationality groups, few or no unauthorised arrivals are found to be refugees.
Look, I can tell you're emotional about this issue. You've already implied that I'm a "John Laws loving halfwit" and you're making similar accusations against other people. I advise you calm down because your "foaming at the mouth" behaviour does more harm than good. Demonising me doesn't strengthen your argument; it just makes you sound like an ignorant idealist
Howard is a tosser, but does that mean I then vote for a bunch of union thugs who want to reward stupidity and laziness, and punish success?
False dichotomy. There is more than one party to vote for. You could also vote for independents. If you voted Liberal simply because you didn't want to vote Labour - like I suspect many people do - then that's your own fault.
They keep refugees for years in lousy conditions, including the fair dinkum ones.
Well, the non-fair-dinkum ones wouldn't be refugees. Call them what they actually are - illegal immigrants - and suddenly the nonsense behind "Save The Refugees" becomes clear.
With that said, I think the living conditions provided for the illegal immigrants are disgusting. They should be treated with dignity even if they are going to be deported. I also think the policy of deporting illegal immigrants is ridiculous: anybody with the guts and determination to risk their lives in a leaky boat for the slim opportunity of living in Australia is a person I'd be proud to have as a neighbour. But even with these personal opinions,
I still think it's tainting the argument to call them all refugees when a huge number of them are not.
This is why (among other things) hardware shader support has been sorted out in DirectX for quite a while now, while OpenGL had a horrible mess of incompatible competing extentions.
And Direct3D didn't have a horrible mess of incompatible competing shading extensions? What the fuck have you been smoking?
I've a strange feeling that no matter how revolutionary or improved Longhorn is, there will be crowds of zealots with their anti-Microsoft sentiment in hand, ready to propogare their GNU agenda.
You have gno idea what you are talking about. I gknow for a fact that gnobody is trying to brainwash you into gnusing GNU/Linux.
I've watched interviews with various professional runners (eg, olympic long-distance runners) and their advice has always been "don't do it". By the age of 50 their knees are ruined. They spend their twilight years hobbling around in pain. Though I suppose half an hour a day isn't quite the same league as the long-distance runners.
Grand Theft Auto: Vice City does have it's weaknesses. It's hung on me several times.
I've clocked 120 hours on this game (took a few weeks!) and it hasn't hung on me.
Bad guys have the amazing ability to shoot through walls. The save your partner mission was particularlly difficult given that someone I needed to kill was inside an object. In certain parts of the city, if you're zipping along quickly, it can't load geometry fast enogh, sometimes causing an object to pop into view just as you hit it.
I haven't seen any of that and I've finished all the core missions. Have you tried the disc on another PS2? I remember with my PSX that some games were "dodgy" and it turned out to be a bad CD assembly. New PSX and the problems went away.
So if the "fake violence breeds real violence" crowd is right, we should be seeing a fairly significant spike in violent crime, right?
Dude, spend a little time in an inner city emergency room some Friday or Saturday night. Make sure that it's a level one trauma center too as that's where all the gunshot victims go to.
"Dude, don't take a general view of the entire population to form a balanced opinion. Instead come and look at my heavily biassed samples in an unusual situation and draw wild conclusions."
Here's [alternativescience.com] a link for you to read. Feel free to point out the obvious flaws in the arguments.
Because they're obvious there's no value in pointing them out; we both already know where the flaws are.
BTW: you could do better than to quote Milton. He's a crank and dismissed as such. See:
http://www.antiquityofman.com/book_miltonreview.ht ml
http://www.swcp.com/~diamond/cre_radio6.shtml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/milton.html
http://skepdic.com/refuge/altscience.html
Really... Milton! Why don't you quote some Gish next?
You've reverted to the insults again. And you didn't answer the question.
I never stopped the insults. And I did answer the question; you just didn't understand the answer.
What is it about gills (or wings or standing upright) that would make it disprove evolution?
You're really trying hard to create a strawman. You've gone from "rabbits with gills" to just "gills". Ask yourself; if your argument against evolution is so robust then why do you need a strawman at all?
When has ANY organism been observed developing from one species to another?
Why do expect me to educate you? Has your life been so silver-spoon that you can't even read without assistance? Type "observed speciation" into Google and do your own background research.
... and still think that transitional traits are evidence that evolution does not exist.
When you present a strawman once I can accept it's just a mistake. When I tell you flat-out that you're misrepresenting me, and when I give you a clear explanation of my position, and then you purposefully repeat the same strawman, well then I just think you're an arsehole.
The evidence isn't going into fall in your lap. Nobody owes you an education
So I should go off and do my own experimentation because actual results are not being made available. Or haven't you found any?
Did you perhaps miss the recent Slashdot article on this very topic? I'm finding it hard to understand how you could have read the article and still be claiming that there's no evidence.
They don't. If they did, that would be strong evidence against evolution.
So the development of new traits/species is evidence against evolution? So it'd only be evidence of evolution if the rabbits suddenly became horses right. Or do they have to develop a certain number of new traits for them to become evidence of evolution?
Yes, a rabbit giving birth to a horse would be fairly definite evidence against evolution. But I think you're just being intentionally silly. You have a degree in science: do you think you'd have that degree if you'd written stuff this silly during exams?
According to your argument (which I have seen you use before) a transitional species is evidence against evolution.
This is not my argument. If you're going to create a strawman then you should at least dress it up before placing it in the field. There's a huge difference between a transitional species and your "rabbit giving birth to a horse" idiocy.
Ignores basic geology, natural selection and changes in climate.
<TongueInCheek>So you have degrees in geology and metereology as well?</TongueInCheek>
I'll elaborate my argument. Though really it's not my argument but is instead an often repeated argument in layman's science books. The discovery of a rabbit with gills would be evidence against evolution because you'd expect transitional forms between no-gills and gills. Evolution is slow and gradual. Large changes - normal rabbits giving birth to rabbits with gills, normal rabbits suddenly walking upright, normal rabbits giving birth to horses - are all evidence against evolution.
But of course, I don't have a PhD in Biology so I'm sure you'll discredit me:-P
I really don't care if you don't believe me. It's completely irrelevant to the entire thread of this discussion. Attacking the person, or their credentials, is a pretty weak way of supporting your argument.
I do believe you. I also agree that attacking the person on the basis of their credentials is worthless, but I also think it's worthless when people start their argument with "I have a Biology Degree". I've got two degrees and I don't remember diddly-squat from either of them. I certainly don't use my degrees to bludgeon people in arguments. If you were a full-time professional biologist then that would be different.
You continually tell me to "educate" myself but the best I have seen from you, with respect to research of any kind, is some links to extremely weak articles (Evolution is a fact because most biologist accept it as so)
Shrug. What do you want? I could link to the peer-reviewed scientific journals but there's no guarantee you would understand them, even if you did fork out the money to get a copy. The pages that I did link to have statements from Gould and Dawkins: you can obstinantly insist that their claims are "weak" but I think that just means you're holding them to an unreasonably high standard.
The thing about the pot calling the kettle black is that the kettle is still black. Saying "but you are too!" does not make you clean. Wrapping up your rather childish comeback - basically you've said "he started it first!" - with flowery words and pseudo-philosophy will only fool the fools. If you want to be respected by fools then I say you have done a good job, but I'd rather treat those fools with contempt.
Afterall, for all your self-righteous bullshit, when it came down to the line you were everything you claimed you disliked in me. See you later, kettle.
Oh, by the way, I found this particularly amusing...
When I did my Biology degree (10 years ago)
Suddenly becomes
B. Sc Aqu. Sci. (Aqu Biol/Comp Sci). Graduated 1994 - Deakin University
Deakin University doesn't offer this unusual degree. Perhaps they did 10 years ago, but today the closest they offer is Bachelor of Science minoring in Computer Science.
If you look at the coursework for B Sc (Comp Sci) then we can eliminate the biology major, the chemistry major, the earth science major, because these majors don't offer courses in aquatic science.
My best guess is you did the Environmental Science major .
This offers at best three biology courses, each course lasting only a single semester within the 3 year degree.
Now if you wanted to do an actual degreee in Biology you'd need to do a Bachelor of Science (Biological Science). This is offered by The Biology and Chemistry Department, not the School of Ecology and Environment.
Now while it's certainly possible that the degrees and departments have shuffled in 10 years, I'm also willing to entertain the possibility that you exaggerated your credentials when you claimed you had a biology degree. I am certainly not belittling your degree - it's hard work and I congratulate you - but I'd like to know whether you truly did a biology degree, or if you did a biology course or two.
Slashdot Mirror
No way! All Australians are prepared to combat terrorism. I've got my Government Endorsed Anti-Terrorism Fridge Magnet and I'm completely safe now!
I've already stated the two problems I see. The first is that the detainment conditions are poor. The second is that illegal immigrants are deported if their refugee claims are false. I don't dispute the need for detainment and processing. I don't know where you got the idea that I did.
And I recognise the argument for deporting: if you allow the "queue jumpers" in then there might be a flood of illegal immigrants. I personally have no problem with that scenario. Let them all live in Australia on work visas until they have gained citizenship. I see no value in deporting them.
And you're pulling the typical unthinking Slashdot bashing "MS is great and Slashdot is sucks and you are all HYPOCRATES [sic]" crap that goes on here every time a newbie with ID 500000+ writes an even slightly anti-MS comment.
You even did the appeal to mod-points that all the trolls do. Go away. You're just as bad as the anti-Microsoft trolls.
Well, no, but that's what the processing (and detainment) is there for.
They are illegal immigrants.
Whether they are also refugees is something that is determined during detainment.
The UN definition of refugee is very clear.
The public record.
Look, I can tell you're emotional about this issue. You've already implied that I'm a "John Laws loving halfwit" and you're making similar accusations against other people. I advise you calm down because your "foaming at the mouth" behaviour does more harm than good. Demonising me doesn't strengthen your argument; it just makes you sound like an ignorant idealist
False dichotomy. There is more than one party to vote for. You could also vote for independents. If you voted Liberal simply because you didn't want to vote Labour - like I suspect many people do - then that's your own fault.
Well, the non-fair-dinkum ones wouldn't be refugees. Call them what they actually are - illegal immigrants - and suddenly the nonsense behind "Save The Refugees" becomes clear.
With that said, I think the living conditions provided for the illegal immigrants are disgusting. They should be treated with dignity even if they are going to be deported. I also think the policy of deporting illegal immigrants is ridiculous: anybody with the guts and determination to risk their lives in a leaky boat for the slim opportunity of living in Australia is a person I'd be proud to have as a neighbour. But even with these personal opinions, I still think it's tainting the argument to call them all refugees when a huge number of them are not.
And Direct3D didn't have a horrible mess of incompatible competing shading extensions? What the fuck have you been smoking?
Actually Bush has known for ages where the button is but only recently has he worked out how to use it.
You have gno idea what you are talking about. I gknow for a fact that gnobody is trying to brainwash you into gnusing GNU/Linux.
I've watched interviews with various professional runners (eg, olympic long-distance runners) and their advice has always been "don't do it". By the age of 50 their knees are ruined. They spend their twilight years hobbling around in pain. Though I suppose half an hour a day isn't quite the same league as the long-distance runners.
I've clocked 120 hours on this game (took a few weeks!) and it hasn't hung on me.
I haven't seen any of that and I've finished all the core missions. Have you tried the disc on another PS2? I remember with my PSX that some games were "dodgy" and it turned out to be a bad CD assembly. New PSX and the problems went away.
"Dude, don't take a general view of the entire population to form a balanced opinion. Instead come and look at my heavily biassed samples in an unusual situation and draw wild conclusions."
You need a reality check.
Cranks are dismissed as cranks, too.
Read the pages. They give plenty of reasons why Milton's work is worthless.
First you said it has obvious flaws. Now it's perfectly valid. Make up your mind.
Because they're obvious there's no value in pointing them out; we both already know where the flaws are.
BTW: you could do better than to quote Milton. He's a crank and dismissed as such. See:
Really... Milton! Why don't you quote some Gish next?
I never stopped the insults. And I did answer the question; you just didn't understand the answer.
You're really trying hard to create a strawman. You've gone from "rabbits with gills" to just "gills". Ask yourself; if your argument against evolution is so robust then why do you need a strawman at all?
Why do expect me to educate you? Has your life been so silver-spoon that you can't even read without assistance? Type "observed speciation" into Google and do your own background research.
Yes! Argument Ad Stevium. It's all the rage in materialism religious circles.
Well to be honest right now I'm picturing a troll; back half a human but front half an ass.
Another strawman, this time trying to pretend that evolution is directed. You really are awful at this.
Amongst others.
When you present a strawman once I can accept it's just a mistake. When I tell you flat-out that you're misrepresenting me, and when I give you a clear explanation of my position, and then you purposefully repeat the same strawman, well then I just think you're an arsehole.
Did you perhaps miss the recent Slashdot article on this very topic? I'm finding it hard to understand how you could have read the article and still be claiming that there's no evidence.
Yes, a rabbit giving birth to a horse would be fairly definite evidence against evolution. But I think you're just being intentionally silly. You have a degree in science: do you think you'd have that degree if you'd written stuff this silly during exams?
This is not my argument. If you're going to create a strawman then you should at least dress it up before placing it in the field. There's a huge difference between a transitional species and your "rabbit giving birth to a horse" idiocy.
<TongueInCheek>So you have degrees in geology and metereology as well?</TongueInCheek>
I'll elaborate my argument. Though really it's not my argument but is instead an often repeated argument in layman's science books. The discovery of a rabbit with gills would be evidence against evolution because you'd expect transitional forms between no-gills and gills. Evolution is slow and gradual. Large changes - normal rabbits giving birth to rabbits with gills, normal rabbits suddenly walking upright, normal rabbits giving birth to horses - are all evidence against evolution.
But of course, I don't have a PhD in Biology so I'm sure you'll discredit me :-P
I do believe you. I also agree that attacking the person on the basis of their credentials is worthless, but I also think it's worthless when people start their argument with "I have a Biology Degree". I've got two degrees and I don't remember diddly-squat from either of them. I certainly don't use my degrees to bludgeon people in arguments. If you were a full-time professional biologist then that would be different.
Shrug. What do you want? I could link to the peer-reviewed scientific journals but there's no guarantee you would understand them, even if you did fork out the money to get a copy. The pages that I did link to have statements from Gould and Dawkins: you can obstinantly insist that their claims are "weak" but I think that just means you're holding them to an unreasonably high standard.
The thing about the pot calling the kettle black is that the kettle is still black. Saying "but you are too!" does not make you clean. Wrapping up your rather childish comeback - basically you've said "he started it first!" - with flowery words and pseudo-philosophy will only fool the fools. If you want to be respected by fools then I say you have done a good job, but I'd rather treat those fools with contempt.
Afterall, for all your self-righteous bullshit, when it came down to the line you were everything you claimed you disliked in me. See you later, kettle.
Oh, by the way, I found this particularly amusing...
Suddenly becomes
Deakin University doesn't offer this unusual degree. Perhaps they did 10 years ago, but today the closest they offer is Bachelor of Science minoring in Computer Science.
If you look at the coursework for B Sc (Comp Sci) then we can eliminate the biology major, the chemistry major, the earth science major, because these majors don't offer courses in aquatic science.
My best guess is you did the Environmental Science major . This offers at best three biology courses, each course lasting only a single semester within the 3 year degree.
Now if you wanted to do an actual degreee in Biology you'd need to do a Bachelor of Science (Biological Science). This is offered by The Biology and Chemistry Department, not the School of Ecology and Environment.
Now while it's certainly possible that the degrees and departments have shuffled in 10 years, I'm also willing to entertain the possibility that you exaggerated your credentials when you claimed you had a biology degree. I am certainly not belittling your degree - it's hard work and I congratulate you - but I'd like to know whether you truly did a biology degree, or if you did a biology course or two.
Correct.
False.
Well that really says it all.
The evidence isn't going into fall in your lap. Nobody owes you an education.
They don't. If they did, that would be strong evidence against evolution.