Well, no. Sex and gender identification are two different things.
Have you ever noticed that in same-sex pairings, it is common for one member to act very masculine, and the other act very feminine, regardless of what the pair's actual sex is?
Sometimes, yes, sometimes no. What you are speaking about is quite irrelevant to the discussion and has less to do with gender identification than emotional roles in relationships, which is an entirely different thing.
I agree. What a ridiculous premise regarding sexual identity. So an XX or XY chromosome pairing in every cell of a mammal is nothing to do with gender? WTF?
Since when is a study of 3 individuals considered decent research anyway?
Also, when a flock of chickens suddenly loses it's rooster, the dominant female will sometimes act as a rooster. That isn't hormonal?
It's crazy what people try and pass off as science these days...
The REALLY cynical amongst us are in actuality realists. Not surprised at all. The case was definitely part of their agenda to make other organisations spend huge amounts of money to prevent harm to themselves (ie, lawsuits) to in turn to force more money into the music distribution industries already bulging pockets. This court case went the wrong way for (not)AFACT, but I'm sure they only view it as a temporary setback.
"This article describes an experiment that demonstrates that people don't put as much weight on facts as they do their own belief about how the world is supposed to work.
Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished. That would reveal a big chunk of the world's assholes who can no longer point to the cross or to the Qur'an as justification for their actions.
The articles wisely cite valid questions concerning real-life phenominae. That's healthy debate, and it's a sign that hummanity is capable of "moving on". But there still a large number of "my god is better than your god" nyah-nyahs whose idea of healthy debate is killing others who don't agree with them rather than thinking.
Abolishment of religion won't solve all problems, but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved.
Actually it's got a lot less to do with religion or airy-fairyness and more to do with the way we identify ourselves and integrate into the universe around us. In Anthropology it is called Worldview. The mass of assumptions, allegiances etc that guide how we interact with the world and who we identify ourselves to be and with whom we allign ourselves. This study is really nothing new at all and only proves work done in the 1980's.
This RNA seems to be replicating 'until it runs out of substrate', but they've started off with something already quite complex. The real question is can base elements and naturally occurring molecules/compounds spontaneously create RNA? All this study says is that we can run a motor without a car body around it and with it's fuel line just hanging in a pool of petrol.
I only scanned TFA. As for Murdoch papers, I agree with you. Murdoch papers are only adverts and/or propaganda tied together with sex-related articles and aimed at the lowest intelligence level they can get away with.
I can see why you'd be a bit sour. Australia is a great country to live in. Peaceful. It's a shame you couldn't emigrate. I also have a chronic health condition and can understand the difficulties and restrictions that it can place on ones person, even if you are able bodied and can work like myself. We have to fight so much harder to do stuff and people around really don't understand. I guess one my mottoes in life is, "Life isn't fair!" In a strange way, it helps.
If I've worded my arguments a bit strongly, no hard feelings?
Either the editor is confirmed post-modernist bent on proving relative truth or he's an old-time editor clumsily putting, "I don't care about the facts, I want a good story" into newer language.
Isn't that only ISP's that opt into the program? A brief search ISP websites showed me one with a link to the Internet Industry Association website and one one with pages with links to resources on how to stay safe online as well as links to Cyberpatrol and Net Nanny websites. Other ISP's I viewed had nothing.
ISP's who participate in the program are not required to offer filters for free either. From the IIA website:
There are costs involved in providing filtering software products and services to end users. It is up to your ISP whether or not these costs will be passed on to you. Whilst a number of ISPs offer filtered products and services free to their users, the IIA does not require that ISPs should carry the cost of complying with the new regulatory regime because it is concerned that this would disadvantage many small ISPs.
This program is clearly not well publicised by ISP's, or for that matter, the government. Free filter software would seem to be pretty much unobtainable to the average windows user and the system is deficient.
I would, but I don't actually see how your question makes sense? Of course I don't personally agree with everything that each government does. Neither do I have to. I do have to accept that they were voted in democratically. If I do not agree with what they say or do, I have several options ranging from doing nothing to writing letters to relevant ministers or forming a lobby group. That is all part of democracy.
I still maintain that your scant knowledge of Australian politics inhibits your ability to say anything intelligent about our politics.
The government stopped the free software program a year or two ago. It's a shame. It wasn't well publicised either which is probably why it wasn't used as much as it could have been.
I do think that, like most stuff on TV, porn etc on the internet should be opt-in, not opt out. Also the filter list should be debatable in Parliament, not just done in secret by civil servants with their own agendas.
First things first. We don't have a bill of rights here and we don't need it. We've gotten along quite nicely without it for the last 200 odd years.
Secondly, you are still confusing Australian politics with US politics. We have a democracy here, which is not based on how much money you have, unlike the US system. It's one of the best democracies in the world and it's hard to break that!
Thirdly, there is an opt-out option. If I don't want to be under the filter, I don't have to be!
Fourthly, I believe we have much greater freedom of speech in Australia than in the US, it's just less likely that someone will shoot us, plant a burning cross on our lawn or threaten us in any other way.
Fifth, the real worry about the filter list is not that it is done by the government, but that it is to be done by unelected civil servants without review. If it was done in a way that it could be debated in parliament, then we would have no worries.
In short, you fail. You have no understanding of Australian politics or even of our system of governance. Stay out of it.
I think the politicians are less of a problem than the unelected civil servants. It is the civil servants who will be doing the filtering and they do not change from government to government.
Again I see it. All of you are supposedly shouting for free speech, but as soon as someone uses that right who you disagree with, you want to shut him up! I am in favour of free political debate. You are obviously not.
Yep. I see that YOU certainly believe in free debate...not. Hypocrite. If you actually researched the issue properly, you would find that people are quite able to opt out of the filter if they choose to do so.
Why the hell is this flamebait? Bit too close to home for you, moderator?
Shhh! Most people here on slashdot don't actually believe in free debate. In fact most people who say they do, well, don't. They mean 'free debate as long as you don't disagree with me'. They use the flamebait or troll options as a 'disagree' option, which really should take the form of a well-worded response.
I'd say that the majority of families that I've seen have asked about internet filtering. Many people do want it.
And they can get it - right now - without the rest of us having to suffer. All ISPs in Australia must provide customers with filtering software if they want it.
and how well publicised is this? That is the first time I've ever heard that!
I do share concerns regarding the censorship of political material, like the anti-abortion site that was apparently on the list early on. The site was not offensive, and was actually quite sensitive towards women who had followed through with abortions. Not a bad resource at all. Censorship of the media has always existed in Australia, but alongside free political debate. Where censorship intrudes on free political debate is where I get concerned. As I have stated in other places however, I feel that porn etc should be available on an OPT-IN basis instead of an opt-out. Just like on cable TV.
Why is it such a big deal? We've always had censorship of the media here. A vocal minority oppose it. We've also had free and open political debate. You can be a communist here. That's ok. You can be a more right than a Thatcherite and that's ok. Censorship of the media and free political debate have co-existed here for a long time. The big fear that people have concerning censorship is that it will be used to stifle political debate, well, that has not been used to any great effect in the mass media here and I don't think people would let it last long on the internet either.
I don't want it. Period. Now if you want to live beneath a net-nanny filter, that's your issue, but don't be forcing your filtering views on me though. I'm a big boy, I can take care of my own.
I don't see why you get to force your view on the rest of us either???
Slashdot Mirror
Sex (noun) and gender are two distinct things.
Well, no. Sex and gender identification are two different things.
Have you ever noticed that in same-sex pairings, it is common for one member to act very masculine, and the other act very feminine, regardless of what the pair's actual sex is?
Sometimes, yes, sometimes no. What you are speaking about is quite irrelevant to the discussion and has less to do with gender identification than emotional roles in relationships, which is an entirely different thing.
I agree. What a ridiculous premise regarding sexual identity. So an XX or XY chromosome pairing in every cell of a mammal is nothing to do with gender? WTF? Since when is a study of 3 individuals considered decent research anyway? Also, when a flock of chickens suddenly loses it's rooster, the dominant female will sometimes act as a rooster. That isn't hormonal? It's crazy what people try and pass off as science these days...
The REALLY cynical amongst us are in actuality realists. Not surprised at all. The case was definitely part of their agenda to make other organisations spend huge amounts of money to prevent harm to themselves (ie, lawsuits) to in turn to force more money into the music distribution industries already bulging pockets. This court case went the wrong way for (not)AFACT, but I'm sure they only view it as a temporary setback.
The summary:
Which is why religion and all other straight-faced magical thinking should be abolished. That would reveal a big chunk of the world's assholes who can no longer point to the cross or to the Qur'an as justification for their actions. The articles wisely cite valid questions concerning real-life phenominae. That's healthy debate, and it's a sign that hummanity is capable of "moving on". But there still a large number of "my god is better than your god" nyah-nyahs whose idea of healthy debate is killing others who don't agree with them rather than thinking. Abolishment of religion won't solve all problems, but it has the highest ratio of simplicty-of-suggestion to worldwide-problems-solved.
Actually it's got a lot less to do with religion or airy-fairyness and more to do with the way we identify ourselves and integrate into the universe around us. In Anthropology it is called Worldview. The mass of assumptions, allegiances etc that guide how we interact with the world and who we identify ourselves to be and with whom we allign ourselves. This study is really nothing new at all and only proves work done in the 1980's.
This RNA seems to be replicating 'until it runs out of substrate', but they've started off with something already quite complex. The real question is can base elements and naturally occurring molecules/compounds spontaneously create RNA? All this study says is that we can run a motor without a car body around it and with it's fuel line just hanging in a pool of petrol.
Your lack of open-mindedness combined with generalisations, poor logic and questionable statistics is somewhat amusing.
I only scanned TFA. As for Murdoch papers, I agree with you. Murdoch papers are only adverts and/or propaganda tied together with sex-related articles and aimed at the lowest intelligence level they can get away with.
I can see why you'd be a bit sour. Australia is a great country to live in. Peaceful. It's a shame you couldn't emigrate. I also have a chronic health condition and can understand the difficulties and restrictions that it can place on ones person, even if you are able bodied and can work like myself. We have to fight so much harder to do stuff and people around really don't understand. I guess one my mottoes in life is, "Life isn't fair!" In a strange way, it helps.
If I've worded my arguments a bit strongly, no hard feelings?
Either the editor is confirmed post-modernist bent on proving relative truth or he's an old-time editor clumsily putting, "I don't care about the facts, I want a good story" into newer language.
Isn't that only ISP's that opt into the program? A brief search ISP websites showed me one with a link to the Internet Industry Association website and one one with pages with links to resources on how to stay safe online as well as links to Cyberpatrol and Net Nanny websites. Other ISP's I viewed had nothing.
ISP's who participate in the program are not required to offer filters for free either. From the IIA website:
There are costs involved in providing filtering software products and services to end users. It is up to your ISP whether or not these costs will be passed on to you. Whilst a number of ISPs offer filtered products and services free to their users, the IIA does not require that ISPs should carry the cost of complying with the new regulatory regime because it is concerned that this would disadvantage many small ISPs.
This program is clearly not well publicised by ISP's, or for that matter, the government. Free filter software would seem to be pretty much unobtainable to the average windows user and the system is deficient.
I would, but I don't actually see how your question makes sense? Of course I don't personally agree with everything that each government does. Neither do I have to. I do have to accept that they were voted in democratically. If I do not agree with what they say or do, I have several options ranging from doing nothing to writing letters to relevant ministers or forming a lobby group. That is all part of democracy.
I still maintain that your scant knowledge of Australian politics inhibits your ability to say anything intelligent about our politics.
The government stopped the free software program a year or two ago. It's a shame. It wasn't well publicised either which is probably why it wasn't used as much as it could have been.
I do think that, like most stuff on TV, porn etc on the internet should be opt-in, not opt out. Also the filter list should be debatable in Parliament, not just done in secret by civil servants with their own agendas.
First things first. We don't have a bill of rights here and we don't need it. We've gotten along quite nicely without it for the last 200 odd years.
Secondly, you are still confusing Australian politics with US politics. We have a democracy here, which is not based on how much money you have, unlike the US system. It's one of the best democracies in the world and it's hard to break that!
Thirdly, there is an opt-out option. If I don't want to be under the filter, I don't have to be!
Fourthly, I believe we have much greater freedom of speech in Australia than in the US, it's just less likely that someone will shoot us, plant a burning cross on our lawn or threaten us in any other way.
Fifth, the real worry about the filter list is not that it is done by the government, but that it is to be done by unelected civil servants without review. If it was done in a way that it could be debated in parliament, then we would have no worries.
In short, you fail. You have no understanding of Australian politics or even of our system of governance. Stay out of it.
I think the politicians are less of a problem than the unelected civil servants. It is the civil servants who will be doing the filtering and they do not change from government to government.
Again I see it. All of you are supposedly shouting for free speech, but as soon as someone uses that right who you disagree with, you want to shut him up! I am in favour of free political debate. You are obviously not.
Yep. I see that YOU certainly believe in free debate...not. Hypocrite. If you actually researched the issue properly, you would find that people are quite able to opt out of the filter if they choose to do so.
Ummm, I'm Australian. We don't have Republicans or Democrats. Not in the same sense as you anyway...
Then you may choose to opt out of the program. Pretty simple really.
The question I want to ask is who the hell appointed YOU the spokesman for all of OZ?
Personally I do not like Conroys attempts at censorship, which was not part of their electoral platform.
If you think we are any better off than the US you are deluded.
Good for you. I have my opinion, you have yours. We both speak it out. That's called democracy my friend.
Why the hell is this flamebait? Bit too close to home for you, moderator?
Shhh! Most people here on slashdot don't actually believe in free debate. In fact most people who say they do, well, don't. They mean 'free debate as long as you don't disagree with me'. They use the flamebait or troll options as a 'disagree' option, which really should take the form of a well-worded response.
I'd say that the majority of families that I've seen have asked about internet filtering. Many people do want it.
And they can get it - right now - without the rest of us having to suffer. All ISPs in Australia must provide customers with filtering software if they want it.
and how well publicised is this? That is the first time I've ever heard that!
I do share concerns regarding the censorship of political material, like the anti-abortion site that was apparently on the list early on. The site was not offensive, and was actually quite sensitive towards women who had followed through with abortions. Not a bad resource at all. Censorship of the media has always existed in Australia, but alongside free political debate. Where censorship intrudes on free political debate is where I get concerned. As I have stated in other places however, I feel that porn etc should be available on an OPT-IN basis instead of an opt-out. Just like on cable TV.
Why is it such a big deal? We've always had censorship of the media here. A vocal minority oppose it. We've also had free and open political debate. You can be a communist here. That's ok. You can be a more right than a Thatcherite and that's ok. Censorship of the media and free political debate have co-existed here for a long time. The big fear that people have concerning censorship is that it will be used to stifle political debate, well, that has not been used to any great effect in the mass media here and I don't think people would let it last long on the internet either.
I don't want it. Period. Now if you want to live beneath a net-nanny filter, that's your issue, but don't be forcing your filtering views on me though. I'm a big boy, I can take care of my own.
I don't see why you get to force your view on the rest of us either???