You speak as if humans aren't part of nature. Just because we're powerful doesn't mean we're not allowed to act in our own interests.
Mosquitos are the biggest human killers in all of history. They've killed more humans than all of our wars combined. If the Five-Toed Wheezing Slug dies off because of the eradication of mosquitos, so be it.
I thought "started building his weapons cache" was a euphemism, only to find out it's just rocks and stone discs. I am simultaneously disappointed and relieved.
I thought we were on the same page as to the quality of NZ net and only in disagreement as to its cause?
I'm not with Telecom and enjoy a (relatively) good service as a direct result. In the past, this would have been rather difficult. Telecom's a shadow of its former self, however... and is steadily decreasing in power. Its shares have been taking a hit almost daily -- expand the history of that link back to 2008 to see the extent.
Here's a good source of ISP plans in NZ. Telecom are somewhere in the middle. As for market penetration, I'm unable to find any hard data on it. It used to be 90%~ Xtra at the beginning of the naughties. In 2005-2006, it had gone down to 75% shared with TelstraClear. I have no idea what it is now.
Back to my original argument: Monopoly? Not so much anymore. Return on investment? Definitely. We have four million people. TelstraClear have been finding it difficult to justify expanding their cable network in NZ (they actually tried to let their existing cable network fall out of favour for a few years and have only recently begun to roll out new fiber). Telecom, monopoly or no, have very real financial concerns preventing them from ripping up our shitty national copper network for something better. Undersea cabling linking us to the rest of the 'net suffers from the same difficulty of recouping the investment; that's why international traffic is expensive and ISPs often lift their data caps for national traffic.
The one thing NZ internet has going for it is that we're a perfect test bed for new technology.
NZ has fantastic connection to the world, and an TelstraClear is in the process of laying a brand new high capacity cable. I have a 10mbit up/down cable connection and there's no bottlenecks anywhere, let alone on one of the most popular sites on the world -- YouTube. I don't know what this w0mprat fellow is on about in this regard.
What we DO suffer from is lack of return on investment. Those undersea cables cost quite a bit to lay and we live in a country that only recently passed the four-million population mark. Our telecommunications monopoly that is only now being addressed has resulted in a below-OCD-average uptake of broadband technology, exacerbating the return-on-investment problem. Due to the cost of international data transfer, almost all plans in NZ are capped at ridiculously low levels (20gb/month is "good" here).
It's not all doom and gloom though... the new undersea cable has an insane capacity and Telecom's monopolistic grip is being loosened. Unfortunately, thanks to this new law, that light at the end of the tunnel? It's an oncoming train.
Indirectly, perhaps. I believe the primary reason is to help towards getting a free trade agreement with the US, which is what the last two governments have been clamoring for (it's doesn't appear to be that lucrative, though).
Some of the major ISPs have stated that they will be very laxx about compliance to this new law. I don't anticipate any changes to the way I use the net.
On the flip side, some ISPs here have been doing this before the law was even concieved.
Perhaps you could rephrase your argument then? All I've read thus far has been a misunderstanding of science.
Are you after philosophy? Because I can't help you here. As far as I'm concerned, until something passes into the realm of the testable, it's baseless speculation. That isn't to say that it is impossible for some things to be tested. Given enough time (a LOT of time), science should eventually give us all the answers... and cease to be science. But that's just speculation. Even though that's the pattern of science so far... it serves its own ends in terms of discovering that deemed undiscoverable... it doesn't count as evidence that all is undiscoverable -- that's a logical fallacy (all X i've seen is Y thefore all X is Y).
Are you trying to argue against the senses? Well, go nuts man. If you're right then there's no reason to argue against them -- we'll never know the truth -- and we'll just have to make do with the illusion. If you're wrong then for all intents and purposes, nothing has changed. In either case we're treading the same path.
Are you arguing against the scientific method? You say it's not applicable to everything -- do you have any examples?
Sorry, it's just kind of hard to read what you're after.
I guess another way of percieving it would be to expand on that last paragraph -- to test its bulletproofness. It's quite easy to do. Just go up to someone with an opposing view point and apply yourself. For example, I can (and do) take on anyone who adopts a more supernatural stance towards existence. Astrology (as exampled above), god(s), spirits, you name it. Not only have my arguments not even been dented in these debates, they haven't even gotten close to it.
Taking evolution vs. creationism as an example, where my opponent brings up a challenge against evolution, I have the answer, no matter what it is. That's because evolution is solid science (at the moment, it's a more solid science than the theory of gravity) and what hole is a creationist going to find in it that thousands of fulltime scientists can't? In the meantime, my assertions inevitably cause them to fall back on fallicious logic ("god wrote the book so it's right" -> "the book is right so god is real" / "god works in mysterious ways" translated "I don't know or care to know").
It's practically bullet proof and you're using the fruits of it to communicate with a chap in New Zealand.
Neeeeeeeoo, not quite, but points for trying!:) That link should cover all the above labelled points (and knowledge is always nice, too).
Anyhow, the gist of my perception is (worded differently) that what I percieve, I must then back up, either weakly or strongly, depending on the subject matter. For an example:
- Somebody comes up and tells me that astrology is true and correct and good science. Essentially, the way that the planets align etc can be "read" to determine my personal future (and the personal future of anybody).
- I mull it over and eventually consider that, underneath the quackery surface, there are several focus points. There are well more than 12 types of people in the world... where are all the other personal futures? Why do these readings always come across as cold reading? Why do all twelve readings match my life/week simultaneously? What is the underlying reasoning behind the alignment of celestial bodies, with the impending fate of ourselves? If the future is determinable, implying that it is set in stone, then why are we reading it in the hopes of changing something that is static? If it isn't static, then wouldn't the very act of knowing the future distort it into something different by our newly enlightened actions (or inactions)?
- The astrologist (or believer) can then be confronted with the above. They're all pretty strong points, but they're all pretty obvious, too -- if this science is worth a damn then they've probably got the answers to them all, or at the very least detailed hypothesis on how it all functions. As it is, I've performed this step, and the answer is unwaveringly a variation of finger wiggling and a mystical "ooooOOOOOoooooo!" noise. For me, this is enough to throw astrology out of the window -- nothing supports it. It's akin to the tooth fairy, or god, or mayan prophecy -- fiction that some people take a little too seriously and back it up with fallicious logic and nothing else. This wouldn't satisfy rigorous science but it's a satisfying conclusion for me, personally. I'm not a journal. Hence watered down scientific method.
I guess that's what it comes down to -- applying "proper" logic and reasoning, evidence gathering, as opposed to logical fallacies and testimonial/intuitional/anecdotal "evidence". You are justified to take a look at these two concepts and dismiss them as no different to other concepts -- that's generally what one comes to learn as they grow, that everyone has "their own way" of thinking and doing things, and they all think they're right. The awesome thing that distinguishes "my way" from the rest?
There's no holes in it. The more intelligent you get, the more knowledge you acquire, the more it makes sense and the stronger it becomes. Try applying that qualifier to anything else (which does the opposite) and you'll see why the last few hundred years have been very special for our species.
Someone with the qualities you're stabbing at -- a man who thinks himself intelligent when in reality he is not -- would read what you've said and immediately brush it aside as bullshit. A more intelligent man would (perhaps only briefly) look into themselves, searching for the answer... something solid to anchor to.
My anchor is the way in which I percieve the world: with reason and logic. Essentially, the scientific method.. or a watered down, fit-for-every-day-use version of it. What separates me and my belief of superior intelligence, from the belief of superior intelligence of an astrologist, is not my accumulated knowledge or degrees. It's my method of scrutinising every "fact" or idea that is levelled my way in such a way as to conclusively or near-certainly know that what I hold to be true stands up to observable evidence, logic, and reason... and the logic and reason of like-minded peers.
In short: if you're trying to equate the more rigorously intellectual hobbies such as "tinkering with computers", or "good academic qualifications", with relative intelligence thenn I dare say that you're a bit off the mark yourself.
I remember playing Theif (the first one). Around halfway through the game, after completing a half dozen "maps", I found myself in a secret basement under a church. Dark, abandoned... and of course by this time, the "theif" persona of the main character had been driven into me. Nobody knows you exist or to look for you if you go missing. Combat is not the theif's forte, with a 50/50 chance of making it out alive.
So here I am, in a secret unused basement corridor underneath an old church, at night, alone, with little more than a blackjack... and up ahead of me around the corner, I hear the familiar shuffling of chains and low moans of a zombie...
That was like 10 years ago. You want to get someone scared? Immerse them in the game, first. And take away all the guns.
I know that if I had the choice, I'd prefer to be at minimum screened. And if I was going to turn out butt-ugly, I'd prefer that my parents designer-baby me up. The only toes I can forsee this concept treading on are the toes of the religious, who might object to "but it's playing god" or "but god made your kid a mutant for a divine reason" or whatever the hell the excuse of the decade is -- I can't pretend to be able to understand the thoughts of these people.
Slashdot Mirror
http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Australian_government_secret_ACMA_internet_censorship_blacklist%2C_18_Mar_2009
It's the same list -- they did some hefty trimming after it was published to wikileaks.com, presumably to remove the more controversial links.
You speak as if humans aren't part of nature. Just because we're powerful doesn't mean we're not allowed to act in our own interests.
Mosquitos are the biggest human killers in all of history. They've killed more humans than all of our wars combined. If the Five-Toed Wheezing Slug dies off because of the eradication of mosquitos, so be it.
I thought "started building his weapons cache" was a euphemism, only to find out it's just rocks and stone discs. I am simultaneously disappointed and relieved.
I thought we were on the same page as to the quality of NZ net and only in disagreement as to its cause?
I'm not with Telecom and enjoy a (relatively) good service as a direct result. In the past, this would have been rather difficult. Telecom's a shadow of its former self, however... and is steadily decreasing in power. Its shares have been taking a hit almost daily -- expand the history of that link back to 2008 to see the extent.
Here's a good source of ISP plans in NZ. Telecom are somewhere in the middle. As for market penetration, I'm unable to find any hard data on it. It used to be 90%~ Xtra at the beginning of the naughties. In 2005-2006, it had gone down to 75% shared with TelstraClear. I have no idea what it is now.
Back to my original argument: Monopoly? Not so much anymore. Return on investment? Definitely. We have four million people. TelstraClear have been finding it difficult to justify expanding their cable network in NZ (they actually tried to let their existing cable network fall out of favour for a few years and have only recently begun to roll out new fiber). Telecom, monopoly or no, have very real financial concerns preventing them from ripping up our shitty national copper network for something better. Undersea cabling linking us to the rest of the 'net suffers from the same difficulty of recouping the investment; that's why international traffic is expensive and ISPs often lift their data caps for national traffic.
The one thing NZ internet has going for it is that we're a perfect test bed for new technology.
due to cryogenics and the strong possibility of future revival, it's pretty difficult to shoot somebody to true death -- only legal death :)
I pay the NZ equivalent for 10mbit up/down and 80gb cap, on a network owned 100% by one of Telecom's competitors.
But nice try.
Speaking as a kiwi...
Wut?
Three words.
Return on investment.
NZ has fantastic connection to the world, and an TelstraClear is in the process of laying a brand new high capacity cable. I have a 10mbit up/down cable connection and there's no bottlenecks anywhere, let alone on one of the most popular sites on the world -- YouTube. I don't know what this w0mprat fellow is on about in this regard.
What we DO suffer from is lack of return on investment. Those undersea cables cost quite a bit to lay and we live in a country that only recently passed the four-million population mark. Our telecommunications monopoly that is only now being addressed has resulted in a below-OCD-average uptake of broadband technology, exacerbating the return-on-investment problem. Due to the cost of international data transfer, almost all plans in NZ are capped at ridiculously low levels (20gb/month is "good" here).
It's not all doom and gloom though... the new undersea cable has an insane capacity and Telecom's monopolistic grip is being loosened. Unfortunately, thanks to this new law, that light at the end of the tunnel? It's an oncoming train.
Indirectly, perhaps. I believe the primary reason is to help towards getting a free trade agreement with the US, which is what the last two governments have been clamoring for (it's doesn't appear to be that lucrative, though).
Some of the major ISPs have stated that they will be very laxx about compliance to this new law. I don't anticipate any changes to the way I use the net.
On the flip side, some ISPs here have been doing this before the law was even concieved.
What do you mean "caught"? It no longer matters whether they're actually guilty.
Mod this AC up -- this is the crux of the issue and is not to be skipped over.
I'm hoping the Maori peoples stand up and say no to this - I wouldn't like to fight them! ;D
The term "New Zealander" includes Maori, just as it includes all other racial backgrounds that make up the people of Aotearoa.
:). Well, maybe. I think Pa are getting a bit outdated.
And yeah they'd kick some arse
Perhaps you could rephrase your argument then? All I've read thus far has been a misunderstanding of science.
Are you after philosophy? Because I can't help you here. As far as I'm concerned, until something passes into the realm of the testable, it's baseless speculation. That isn't to say that it is impossible for some things to be tested. Given enough time (a LOT of time), science should eventually give us all the answers... and cease to be science. But that's just speculation. Even though that's the pattern of science so far... it serves its own ends in terms of discovering that deemed undiscoverable... it doesn't count as evidence that all is undiscoverable -- that's a logical fallacy (all X i've seen is Y thefore all X is Y).
Are you trying to argue against the senses? Well, go nuts man. If you're right then there's no reason to argue against them -- we'll never know the truth -- and we'll just have to make do with the illusion. If you're wrong then for all intents and purposes, nothing has changed. In either case we're treading the same path.
Are you arguing against the scientific method? You say it's not applicable to everything -- do you have any examples?
Sorry, it's just kind of hard to read what you're after.
I guess another way of percieving it would be to expand on that last paragraph -- to test its bulletproofness. It's quite easy to do. Just go up to someone with an opposing view point and apply yourself. For example, I can (and do) take on anyone who adopts a more supernatural stance towards existence. Astrology (as exampled above), god(s), spirits, you name it. Not only have my arguments not even been dented in these debates, they haven't even gotten close to it.
Taking evolution vs. creationism as an example, where my opponent brings up a challenge against evolution, I have the answer, no matter what it is. That's because evolution is solid science (at the moment, it's a more solid science than the theory of gravity) and what hole is a creationist going to find in it that thousands of fulltime scientists can't? In the meantime, my assertions inevitably cause them to fall back on fallicious logic ("god wrote the book so it's right" -> "the book is right so god is real" / "god works in mysterious ways" translated "I don't know or care to know").
It's practically bullet proof and you're using the fruits of it to communicate with a chap in New Zealand.
Neeeeeeeoo, not quite, but points for trying! :) That link should cover all the above labelled points (and knowledge is always nice, too).
Anyhow, the gist of my perception is (worded differently) that what I percieve, I must then back up, either weakly or strongly, depending on the subject matter. For an example:
- Somebody comes up and tells me that astrology is true and correct and good science. Essentially, the way that the planets align etc can be "read" to determine my personal future (and the personal future of anybody).
- I mull it over and eventually consider that, underneath the quackery surface, there are several focus points. There are well more than 12 types of people in the world... where are all the other personal futures? Why do these readings always come across as cold reading? Why do all twelve readings match my life/week simultaneously? What is the underlying reasoning behind the alignment of celestial bodies, with the impending fate of ourselves? If the future is determinable, implying that it is set in stone, then why are we reading it in the hopes of changing something that is static? If it isn't static, then wouldn't the very act of knowing the future distort it into something different by our newly enlightened actions (or inactions)?
- The astrologist (or believer) can then be confronted with the above. They're all pretty strong points, but they're all pretty obvious, too -- if this science is worth a damn then they've probably got the answers to them all, or at the very least detailed hypothesis on how it all functions. As it is, I've performed this step, and the answer is unwaveringly a variation of finger wiggling and a mystical "ooooOOOOOoooooo!" noise. For me, this is enough to throw astrology out of the window -- nothing supports it. It's akin to the tooth fairy, or god, or mayan prophecy -- fiction that some people take a little too seriously and back it up with fallicious logic and nothing else. This wouldn't satisfy rigorous science but it's a satisfying conclusion for me, personally. I'm not a journal. Hence watered down scientific method.
I guess that's what it comes down to -- applying "proper" logic and reasoning, evidence gathering, as opposed to logical fallacies and testimonial/intuitional/anecdotal "evidence". You are justified to take a look at these two concepts and dismiss them as no different to other concepts -- that's generally what one comes to learn as they grow, that everyone has "their own way" of thinking and doing things, and they all think they're right. The awesome thing that distinguishes "my way" from the rest?
There's no holes in it. The more intelligent you get, the more knowledge you acquire, the more it makes sense and the stronger it becomes. Try applying that qualifier to anything else (which does the opposite) and you'll see why the last few hundred years have been very special for our species.
I'm going to hell :
Every moral statement is a coloured assertion of one's own opinion.
Someone with the qualities you're stabbing at -- a man who thinks himself intelligent when in reality he is not -- would read what you've said and immediately brush it aside as bullshit. A more intelligent man would (perhaps only briefly) look into themselves, searching for the answer... something solid to anchor to.
My anchor is the way in which I percieve the world: with reason and logic. Essentially, the scientific method.. or a watered down, fit-for-every-day-use version of it. What separates me and my belief of superior intelligence, from the belief of superior intelligence of an astrologist, is not my accumulated knowledge or degrees. It's my method of scrutinising every "fact" or idea that is levelled my way in such a way as to conclusively or near-certainly know that what I hold to be true stands up to observable evidence, logic, and reason... and the logic and reason of like-minded peers.
In short: if you're trying to equate the more rigorously intellectual hobbies such as "tinkering with computers", or "good academic qualifications", with relative intelligence thenn I dare say that you're a bit off the mark yourself.
I mispelt "theif".
Oh noes I did it again!
I remember playing Theif (the first one). Around halfway through the game, after completing a half dozen "maps", I found myself in a secret basement under a church. Dark, abandoned... and of course by this time, the "theif" persona of the main character had been driven into me. Nobody knows you exist or to look for you if you go missing. Combat is not the theif's forte, with a 50/50 chance of making it out alive.
So here I am, in a secret unused basement corridor underneath an old church, at night, alone, with little more than a blackjack... and up ahead of me around the corner, I hear the familiar shuffling of chains and low moans of a zombie...
That was like 10 years ago. You want to get someone scared? Immerse them in the game, first. And take away all the guns.
I know that if I had the choice, I'd prefer to be at minimum screened. And if I was going to turn out butt-ugly, I'd prefer that my parents designer-baby me up. The only toes I can forsee this concept treading on are the toes of the religious, who might object to "but it's playing god" or "but god made your kid a mutant for a divine reason" or whatever the hell the excuse of the decade is -- I can't pretend to be able to understand the thoughts of these people.
I stand corrected... and a little shaken... >.>
There'd be complaints, maybe, but nothing more.
Unless you live in a backwards country.
In which case you're more likely to be having this parade. Hmm.. fuels itself...