However, it seems to me ancient history is a perfectly fine place to present the fact that people have believed in ID historically. While ID in its current form is a fairly modern interpretation, the notion of an intelligent designer has been around for quite a while, and has had a profound influence on our world (for better or for worse).
Yeah, but they want to teach it as a "controversy" in "Ancient History", which is clearly bullshit.
1) Stephen Conroy is spot on when he says the internet shouldn't be treated any different to any other forms of media. It isn't a magical beast, it's just another form of media (albeit more accessible and chaotic).
So there's nothing fundamentally wrong with filtering it. I mean hell, it's already illegal to *host* this sort of content in Australia.
There are several things wrong with this comment. Most of them have already been pointed out, so I'll just add this. There are two other communications media that the internet is similar to: mail and telephone. Yet we don't see these media censored the same way that Conroy is proposing to censor the internet.
2) It might be abused, or it filter stuff you disagree with.
I disagree with filtering material on euthanasia. However this isn't an objection against the filter itself (I mean, I agree with filtering stuff on graffiti or terrorist), but simply against the choice of application.
The filter already is abusive. The distinction between the filter and its application isn't relevant to this argument. Stuff is filtered or it is not.
3) The reason it will fail is exactly the reason it will work.
It will fail miserably because anyone can circumnavigate it.
But this is exactly what makes it hard to abuse. With oddly-moralized hackers up in arms, you can bet they'll seize on any abuses of the filter and plaster them embarresingly over the internet. So the government has a strong incentive to stick within their declared uses of the filter.
Apparently the government has no such incentive at all. They're delaying this, after all. Whether they admit it or not, they actually have a strong incentive to simply drop this idea. They will certainly lose votes over this. The question is how many, and it occurs to me that this may well be one of the main reasons for putting this off.
So the worst objection to the filter is simply that it could mostly be a waste of time... that said, it will evolve and change and may prove useful.
It's hard to take this seriously; it's as if you haven't read or understood the real objections:
Instead of actually filtering the intended material, it will drive it underground where it is harder to monitor. As things stand now, access to the material can be monitored. Putting the filter in place makes people have to get at it in ways that can't be monitored easily, if at all.
Since the material intended to be filtered can be accessed anyway, people who don't understand the technology won't understand that the filter isn't working and will think that the material is inaccessible. It's the false sense of security that filter proponents would not want parents to have, for example.
The government has lied repeatedly about this proposal. What makes you think they will not lie about it again?
What makes you think the next government, or the one after it, won't lie about it or misuse it?
What if the government decides to make it work by instructing ISPs to drop any packets they can't read, effectively making them MITMs? That completely breaks internet commerce, which is obviously unacceptable. So this would be mitigated how? Possibly by a government-mandated whitelist of IPs with whom anyone can communicate with encrypted data. Which still roots internet commerce anyway.
It's not just a waste of time and money. It's a breach of faith on several fronts.
Why give in to ignorance? It may feel (and sometimes smell) like pushing shit uphill with a pointy instrument, but simply giving in to the "the languages changes, get over it" schtick allows it to excuse any example of ignorance. We already have an expression that means "which raises the question". It's "which raises the question". Why is it necessary to usurp another expression that is useful for meaning something else altogether, and thus take away an expression that means something else altogether, when with a trivial effort the proper "raises the question" phrase can be used to mean "raises the question"?
I know you want to de-link "begs the question" from "petitio principii", but there are two problems with that. One is that you could simply start speaking Latin at people, and they won't understand you: I certainly wouldn't. The other is that once you permit the ignorant to usurp one usage, they'll simply do it again, and next time it'll be your brand new phrase that you invented to mean "petitio principii". And then you have the same problem all over again; rinse and repeat.
Now they do. And perhaps just some of them ought to have known if their nerd friends had even so much as mentioned it at least once before. If some of these people hadn't cared about this geek issue before, then they probably care a bit more about it now. Assuming such a set of people exists, of course.
WTF is "copyright theft"? What, does someone break into my apartment, rifle through my stuff and steal a copyright and flog it for a hundred dollars down the pub and leave me without a copyright?
The web works differently. One computer asks another for an index of available material. The other computer, by default, complies with the request and hands over a copy of the index. The first computer asks for a copy of the material listed in the index, and the second, again by default, complies with that request. This is not at all the same as walking into a house with an open door and removing actual property. Computers on a network will always do what they are asked to do. They are designed to do exactly that. When they do it, they are working exactly as they are supposed to work. This is not at all analogous with our traditional understanding of the way houses work. It's way past time people understood that.
This isn't burglary. To continue the analogy: this is someone walking up that unfinished street, looking in three thousand-odd places for someone with a list of things to see, finally finding someone with an index, asking them for a copy of that index, and then asking them for a copy of everything on that index. And that someone willingly complied with every request for information.
Where does Australia find these whack jobs? I mean, either the guy is a paranoid schizophrenic or a mental retard
Well, either a majority of his electoral division all got together and decided in their collective infinite wisdom that it was in their best interests, all things considered, to be represented by a paranoid schizophrenic, mentally retarded whack job... or the majority of his division are simply paranoid schizophrenic, mentally retarded whack jobs themselves. I'll meditate on which of the two possibilities is the more likely.
Anonymous recently turned its attention against the AU government after it said in December that it would block access to sites featuring material such as rape, drug use, bestiality and child sex abuse.
I can't think of anything more likely to validate the government's actions in the eyes of its socially conservative constituents.
I can't think of anything that would change the mind of this government or its socially conservative constituents about their hare-brained idea to put a fishnet condom on the internets, either, so a bit of civil disobedience may very well be in order.
Slashdot Mirror
Meta-mods might -- one can only hope -- deal with it.
Yeah, but they want to teach it as a "controversy" in "Ancient History", which is clearly bullshit.
Because fervently opposing religion is an interesting scientific thing to do?
You mean selectively enforced, don't you?
I didn't even get that far. I got to "intelligent design" and thought this was a story about mind viruses.
And if I'm not doing anything illegal, why do you need to know who I am when I make a phone call?
Or, for people who would prefer that we would just print the "u": *u** *** *u***** *u******
Too easy to ignore the loaded question there. I'll take it at face value: just work, and fuck everything else. Seriously.
Is that the same Labor party led by the man who door-stops every Sunday morning in front of a church?
There are several things wrong with this comment. Most of them have already been pointed out, so I'll just add this. There are two other communications media that the internet is similar to: mail and telephone. Yet we don't see these media censored the same way that Conroy is proposing to censor the internet.
The filter already is abusive. The distinction between the filter and its application isn't relevant to this argument. Stuff is filtered or it is not.
Apparently the government has no such incentive at all. They're delaying this, after all. Whether they admit it or not, they actually have a strong incentive to simply drop this idea. They will certainly lose votes over this. The question is how many, and it occurs to me that this may well be one of the main reasons for putting this off.
It's hard to take this seriously; it's as if you haven't read or understood the real objections:
It's not just a waste of time and money. It's a breach of faith on several fronts.
Not sure why you listed them separately.
Why give in to ignorance? It may feel (and sometimes smell) like pushing shit uphill with a pointy instrument, but simply giving in to the "the languages changes, get over it" schtick allows it to excuse any example of ignorance. We already have an expression that means "which raises the question". It's "which raises the question". Why is it necessary to usurp another expression that is useful for meaning something else altogether, and thus take away an expression that means something else altogether, when with a trivial effort the proper "raises the question" phrase can be used to mean "raises the question"?
I know you want to de-link "begs the question" from "petitio principii", but there are two problems with that. One is that you could simply start speaking Latin at people, and they won't understand you: I certainly wouldn't. The other is that once you permit the ignorant to usurp one usage, they'll simply do it again, and next time it'll be your brand new phrase that you invented to mean "petitio principii". And then you have the same problem all over again; rinse and repeat.
Now they do. And perhaps just some of them ought to have known if their nerd friends had even so much as mentioned it at least once before. If some of these people hadn't cared about this geek issue before, then they probably care a bit more about it now. Assuming such a set of people exists, of course.
There is no spoon.
Note to self: "Wasn't me, honey"
What do the other Germans think?
["Slow Down Cowboy", my left one...]
One-point-three-eight-naught Libraries of Congress on the Wall...
WTF is "copyright theft"? What, does someone break into my apartment, rifle through my stuff and steal a copyright and flog it for a hundred dollars down the pub and leave me without a copyright?
KOP-er-NEEK-ium? I don't even know what the rules are on this sort of thing.
The web works differently. One computer asks another for an index of available material. The other computer, by default, complies with the request and hands over a copy of the index. The first computer asks for a copy of the material listed in the index, and the second, again by default, complies with that request. This is not at all the same as walking into a house with an open door and removing actual property. Computers on a network will always do what they are asked to do. They are designed to do exactly that. When they do it, they are working exactly as they are supposed to work. This is not at all analogous with our traditional understanding of the way houses work. It's way past time people understood that.
This isn't burglary. To continue the analogy: this is someone walking up that unfinished street, looking in three thousand-odd places for someone with a list of things to see, finally finding someone with an index, asking them for a copy of that index, and then asking them for a copy of everything on that index. And that someone willingly complied with every request for information.
Well, either a majority of his electoral division all got together and decided in their collective infinite wisdom that it was in their best interests, all things considered, to be represented by a paranoid schizophrenic, mentally retarded whack job... or the majority of his division are simply paranoid schizophrenic, mentally retarded whack jobs themselves. I'll meditate on which of the two possibilities is the more likely.
I can't think of anything that would change the mind of this government or its socially conservative constituents about their hare-brained idea to put a fishnet condom on the internets, either, so a bit of civil disobedience may very well be in order.
We already have a solution. It's called taking legal action against the alleged offenders.