You indicated that I didn't understand./ culture. As if perhaps I was a newcomer to the party. I'm not, and UID is an indication of how recently we've joined the community. I am aware of the conventional wisdom espoused here, and disagree on this point as it applies to this particular discussion.
How much fun would it be to have a community where everyone was in complete agreement all of the time?
It's not that technology could solve the social issue, it's that there's a way in which technology could be applied to address some aspects of a social issue. It makes perfect sense to me to do that. It is antithetical to your thinking to do that to address this issue. Fair enough. We disagree.
I don't think this is accurate. I believe the majority of traffic nowadays is due to BitTorrent. NNTP isn't that far behind HTTP, either, so saying "vast majority" isn't right. OK, so "vast majority" in terms of raw bit count - of course you're right. "Vast majority" in terms of pictures? Absolutely http(s)
What you're saying on this point is factually accurate, but irrelevant to the discussion.
The fact that I can download images of DVDs, TV shows, music, or anything else is irrelevant because the majority of views on the intarweb are through a browser, and filtering that would accomplish my goals, even if bittorrent and nntp are huge bandwidth hogs.
FWIW, I'm not going to let my kids have access to unrestricted nntp feeds, either. There's lots of crap out there.
If your goal is to filter the Interweb, PICS labels were designed for this purpose, Great. How many sites use that?
or if you don't want to wait on sites to label, there's lots of filtering software out there. And while I'm comfortable with my implementation and management of squid/dansguardian plus custom filters, most parents could not possibly figure out how that works. I work in IT at a Fortune 100 company, and most of my coworkers couldn't do it. (Outside of the small percentage of really geeky ones.)
These parents should make it clear that the demand exists, and ISPs will offer these services. Most parents eyes glaze over when geeks start to talk about IP addresses. They are not informed enough to talk about PICS labels.
Why don't we leave the technical details to the people that actually understand how the Internet works? It's not the same as foam engine blocks. There frankly is little reason from a technical perspective that this would not be feasible. I get that people get ticked when some piddly group like a state government tries to define technology standards for the whole world, but porn and violent content are a major problem and should be filtered from people who need the filters. (You don't want to be filtered? OK by me. What you pollute your brain with is your business - within limits.)
Current technology is pretty crappy when it comes to filtering, and it makes sense to me that passing some laws about how to characterize the content is an attempt to address the real issue.
This is the reason that we here on/. bristle when societal issues are being solved by technical measures Riiiiight. 'cause you've been a part of the community for so long, and I'm such a newcomer that I fail to understand the culture here. Uh Huh.
1. Ports are for services. Pragmatically, the vast majority of content is served via http and https. It really matters little what content is served over gopher. Even if lots and lots of content is provided over these "other" protocols, moving porn to non-80 and non-443 ports will make a huge difference. Your attempted point about breaking attachments is quite silly.
2. the Internet needs -- it needs parents who discipline their children for doing things children shouldn't do. I could not agree more that parents need to do the job of parenting, but can you see that putting some structure around content makes the job of parenting easier? I can sign up for cable and use parental controls to block my kids from recording and watching content with certain ratings. This system is imperfect - I think that the ratings are not strict enough, frankly not all content has ratings, and sometimes the ratings seem silly. Should mythbusters be PG? Identifying so-called "adult" content with metadata or by putting (most of) it on another "channel" would make creation of systems to limit access much simpler.
Carp about irresponsible parents if you will, but the tools to do this job which are available today are quite weak, and most parents don't have the technology cops to set up dansguardian and squid, or even configure their routers to block free access to surfing the web. We have the technology, why not make their lives simpler?
Once it's simple, we can really condemn those evil selfish parents for not parenting!:)
Clearly it's not perfect, but if the majority of that content was segregated, then it would make filtering easier.
Making alcohol and cigarettes illegal for minors does not keep all kids from drinking and smoking, but it does keep lots of kids from doing things that can be harmful to them.
Moving most porn content to an easily identifiable place would help simplify filtering for those of us who want to filter. Perfect? No. Better than current state? Yes.
FWIW, my kids have never been to Toys R Us without me, and I do know exactly what they are doing on line. I love them, and it's my job to look out for them.
I grew up in appalachia, and have a deep love for the mountains of which you are speaking. While I do agree with you completely that the term genocide is wildly inaccurate, and in principle, rearranging rocks is not a big deal, even when done on a big scale; I take issue with the idea that mountaintop removal has no real environmental impact.
Please note that I am FAR from an environmentalist. I believe that we need to be responsible with the environment, balancing that with the energy needs that we have. We cannot return to an agrarian society which uses only renewable resources.
Factually, abandoned mines do leave acid runoff which does affect streams. While I make no assertion that the Charleston Gazette is unbiased in this matter, the linked article also contains links to a report from the Department of Environmental Potection about the cleanup costs.
In summary, while I believe that your points are valid, it's also valid to acknowledge that a legitimate business cost is the cleanup efforts which must be undertaken after the coal is removed so that the streams are unpolluted.
In meatspace, we already have constraints on distribution channels for so-called "adult" material. I can send my kid to Toys R Us and know that he won't find porn. (I think that there are lots of problems with the junk sold there, but porn is not one of them.)
Why not also provide a mechanism for segregating content? The link to the RFC was simply silly. People who own this "adult" content want to make money from it, and they can be held accountable, unlike the idiots who pseudo-anonymously hack systems.
It's not censorship, it's segregation. This is normative in meatspace, why should it be different in cyberspace?
As a parent, I like the idea that I could install a port blocker at home and block the majority of porn content. I already have a content filter in place that blocks access to pages based on content (porn, violence, etc) and if something like this can make filtering content easier, without significantly restricting access to those people who want that content, what's the big deal?
I shop CompUSA - although I'm not a great customer - I shop the rebate sales and actually complete the rebate paperwork, and no, I don't buy the regularly priced merchandise while I'm there.
I find that they don't consistently post pricing for items, and their customer service is terrible. Ever order over the web for in store pickup? I keep going to the store hours after placing the order and then waiting in line for the management to task a sales clerk to go fetch the products from the shelves. Ick.
They don't know their products, nor do they know where the inventory is, they advertise products at a cheap price that are sold out when I arrive 2 hours after store opening (and when their inventory system says that they have items in stock.) They have been doing an awful job of meeting the market needs, and this is what happens in a competitive market.
I hope that a well stocked, fair priced alternative arrives. Shockingly, I'd pay more for good quality products, skilled sales people, and efficient customer service when I go to a store. I concluded long ago that this was out of the question for CompUSA, and decided to work the angles for cheap after-rebate merchandise from them while waiting for them to collapse.
It's the old Montgomery Wards -> Sears story repeated a hundred years later. Wards was a huge mail order powerhouse, but were upstaged by technology and marketing powerhouse Sears when they didn't adapt to new technology and business models in time. Of course the same thing happened to Sears, too.
Good by, CompUSA. Hello Buy.com, NewEgg, and Fry's!:)
We could spend weeks on this - frankly even defining the terms we are using and making sure that we mean the same thing would take that much time.
It's not that I misunderstand the mechanics of the evolutionary theory. I've done a good deal of reading on the subject and have audited an undergraduate comparative evolution class. I find the theory lacks credibility for a number of reasons. Just because it's widely accepted does not make it right.
Their statement is identical to the claim that however much we breed mammals, the result is always mammals. And it has been! Precisely. This is why it is not credible to say that if we have minute changes which are favorable, and those changes occur over a long enough time frame, a new creature emerges which is fundamentally different from the creature up the chain. This is true even if you "start" with a creature that is not as complex as a mammal. To suggest that all creatures today came to be as a result of simple creatures who were modified a little at a time and got more complex in the process is.... ridiculous.
Furthermore, punctuated equilibrium was proposed because a philosophical naturalist named Gould concluded that "philetic gradualism" "was never seen in the rocks" so he proposed that even kookier theory.
Look. We disagree. We're not going to agree. I believe that you're smart, educated, and absolutely convinced that your worldview is correct. I just find that perspective incredible (e.g. lacking credibility.) You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that.
so as to be one of the most certain things we can know about anything Science is not about the known, it's about the proposed which seems to fit the facts and has not yet been disproven. I never suggested that the information I presented above was factual - I said my information was not sufficiently credible to prove my case, but merely asked if there was another option.
The evidence is clear where the dinosaurs were (pretty much all over the planet, which at the time had a very different continental composure than now in a way that would be impossible to move within a few thousand years without literally ripping the upper crust of the earth apart) and that they dominated their ecosystem: one which lasted for millions and millions of years. This is an incredibly bold statement. What evidence do you offer to support this concept?
I believe that a few thousand years ago the earth experienced a global geological event which dramatically changed the landscape and ecosystem - perhaps even ripping the upper crust of the world apart and a worldwide flood occurred.
I mean no disrespect, but your argument is absurd. It's not a genetic recipe, it's the creation of a person - a unique person - as long as food and shelter are present, a BABY is born. To suggest otherwise is written smoke and mirrors. While you throw around scientific terms, the information above is inaccurate and misleading.
You basically imply that the equivalent of the holocaust is going on all around you, and yet all you do is complain about it? Well, since you don't know me, you don't know if that's all I do.
FWIW, I put my money where my mouth is.
I advocate good parenting, foster care and adoption, even traveling internationally to teach on these topics. I provide financial support to women in "crisis pregnancy" and strongly encourage people to adopt unwanted children. I provide financial and emotional support to communities internationally where I am legally prevented from adopting orphans, but I can send money and send hope.
I have supported my family members as they have adopted children. There are over 100 million orphans worldwide, with many parents dying daily, and it's a crisis that people are not caring for these kids. In the future I plan to be a foster parent and may also adopt children. Presently I have five biological kids six and under, so my plate is a little full, but when my kids get bigger, there will be more I can do.
I financially support organizations that provide education about the horror of abortion, and counseling for the women and men who have made that choice.
You will note that I don't take any action against women who have abortions, nor do I intervene in so-called clinics which leave one dead and one wounded. At this time, this practice, while horrible, is legal in this country and the majority of Americans want it to continue to be legal. I can educate others and hope to win enough hearts to my way of thinking that this practice is changed, but there are limits to what one can legally do, even if there are millions of murders occurring around me.
So, before you go shooting off your mouth about topics on which you are ignorant, you might consider that there are people who are passionate on these topics *and* who take action. The kind of activism I engage in doesn't make the news like when kooks shoot doctors, but it does make a difference in the lives of women, men and children.
Just because some people talk and do nothing does not mean that people who disagree with you are thoughtless and lazy.
My take on this is that it's merely an example of adaptation or "microevolution." We don't see these birds in transition to something radically different, merely to variants of the original kind - a specific kind of bird.
As I said earlier, there's no debate about minor changes being observable. The point at which I break ranks is where people suggest that the minor changes "add up" to a completely different kind of creature. In order to do this, we'd have to rely on immense amounts of time and favorable mutation. Given the tendency of mutation to be extremely unfavorable, we have to add significantly more time to the process.
There are lots of problems with the "huge amounts of time" solution to the problem. One has to do with the amount of kinetic energy in the universe. If the universe is eternal, why hasn't in equilibrated long ago? Another issue is the lack of graves. If human populations have been around for 100,000 years or more, where are all of the graves? The number of dead people would have to be unbelievably large, given what we know about trends in population growth.
There are many many more unanswered questions like these as well.
Evolution is current conventional wisdom, but I don't buy it. Intellectually there's more to it for me than "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." Although, if there's a God, and He did say it, wouldn't that be enough?:)
The Bible contains many different literary styles - some passages are allegorical, some poetic, and some are narrative. The idea of the narrative passages being accurate is very important to me. The Bible tells the story about God and His relationship with mankind - the crown of His creation. It answers the questions: 1. Where did we come from? 2. What went wrong?, and 3. How do we fix it?
If the narrative passages are untrustworthy, then that's a major problem for me. The Bible says that Jesus lived and died for the purpose of reconciling sinful man to a perfect God. It's not about good stories or moral examples - it's about how I can personally be reconciled to my mortal enemy.
If Jesus didn't really live, or was not resurrected from the dead, then... I Cor 15:16-17 "if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."
The fact of Jesus' life, death and resurrection is fundamental to my faith.
You're basing your opinion on the lack of cave paintings? What about deterioration of the paintings which included them? Caves are notoriously wet.
What about the possibility that we have not found caves with the images?
The Bible mentions a "behemoth" like a dinosaur and "leviathan" perhaps a great monster of the sea - in Job 40 and 41. Many people feel that these are descriptions of dinosaurs. I'm not saying that I consider that to be strong evidence, but it is a possible occurrence of dinosaurs in biblical literature.
I have also heard of fossils found (I believe in Texas, but I'm digging deep in my memory now) with human footprints inside of dinosaur footprints.
Isn't it *possible* that man and dinosaurs were on the planet at the same time? Perhaps they were not in the same place much, and that's why literature seems to have little evidence?
I'm not saying that my evidence is convincing, just that your case is a bit weak.
I don't remember that applying to pre-birth (particularly because nearly nothing does... the times). Do you know where it says that? Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God" Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned"
the metaphorical interpretation of the creation story is more prevalent then you think. Sure, but that doesn't make it true. As I explained in my posting above, if you are an adherent to Christianity, it's not logical to make the Eden story an allegory. You have to torture the text and twist the logic to make it work.
When Jesus was asked about marriage, he quoted Genesis. If Genesis was allegory, why would He appeal to the creation account as if it was fact? Sure, he spoke in parables sometimes, but other times He spoke in a direct way. The marriage response is NOT in the form of a parable.
you can't be a scientist if you think dinosaur bones were planted to fool with us, and that carbon dating is baloney First, I think that dinosaurs lived concurrently with man. Dinosaur fossils are fact, and it would be foolish to suggest otherwise.
Secondly, carbon dating is based on three things: a) the amount of C14 present today in the sample b) the rate of decay of C14 being constant, and c) the original amount of C14 in the sample
We can be sure of a), we can frankly only estimate c) and isn't it possible that there were conditions that may have altered b) since the sample was formed?
It's not that the process is flawed, it's that the assumptions may not be valid. Carbon dating is not infallible. Many times radically different dates are estimated for samples from the same thing. Dates that are too close to now are thrown out as error, because of the preconceived notion that the earth is REALLY old.
You're either playing word games, or just hung up on the fact that I used the word "speciation."
My point is that science has NOT observed major evolutionary change - from a fish to a bird, or a dog to a cat or whatever the theory is these days. It has not been observed in the lab, we have not seen punctuated equilibrium, or any other major change. We have seen minor changes in the form of adaptation.
Whether you have a hard boundary, use the term species, or any other distinction, it's all irrelevant to the fact that there are major differences today in the creatures who exist.
Have you no knowledge of history? Prior to Darwin, yours was the conventional wisdom. I am aware of that fact, and I believe that CW will return to that point of view after this flirtation with philosophic naturalism has ended.
Evidence for it (the DNA mechanism, fossil records and geology, etc.) has been increasing ever since. Interesting that you would bring that claim forward. As I said in my initial posting, creationists and evolutionists share the facts and differ in theory about the cause of the observable facts.
DNA is phenomenally information-dense - more information-dense than anything else in the universe. This collection of ordered knowlege points to a designer as far as I'm concerned. In general we see things naturally move from order to disorder, and DNA seems opposite to what is naturally expected.
Irreducible complexity points to simultaneous emergence of interdependent traits which seems to indicate a designer. (Retina/rods/cones/optic nerve, brain capability to interpret these signals, etc)
The fossil record contains the cambrian explosion, which in my view is evidence for a large number of kinds/species/types/diverse life/etc which appear suddenly as if they were created simultaneously.
Recent geologic research indicates that perhaps our understanding and interpretation of the events and mechanics of geologic change are more complex, and also perhaps simpler than expected. Was the grand canyon created through gradual erosion? Take a look at the observed events surrounding the eruption of Mt. St. Helens and the canyon formed in days that is something like 1:20 scale of the Grand Canyon. Over the next few years we saw geologic layers laid down over months rather than years, and what happened to the trees in Spirit Lake helps explain fossils which cross geologic layers. This may indicate that earth's geologic layers were laid down in substantially less time than has been imagined previously.
The collected facts are increasing, but they don't necessarily fall in favor of evolution.
undo Galileo and Copernicus while we're at it. With all due respect, I'm a proponent of GOOD science. Much of what we know today has been the product of unbiased research by men of science who were also men of faith. The official church has done bad things in the past, but Christianity is not incompatible with science. My issue is with those who demand to apply their philosophy to their scientific practice.
You do realize you'll have to convince the Catholics to revert, don't you? No disrespect to Roman Catholics is intended here, but their view is irrelevant to me. If the official church position is wrong, that's their problem to solve, not mine.
Science doesn't consider species as hard lines; they're a notational convenience, nothing more And this is a distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned.
My point about speciation is that there are LOTS of different types of animals out there - cats, dogs, whales, etc. I know that an evolutionary world view sees them all as roughly the same - because according to evolutionary theory they all came from the original single-celled creatures. This is simply not relevant to the discussion. Regardless of the terminology used to describe the different kinds of animals we see, we DO see different types.
I fundamentally disagree with the notion that all life emerged from soup to single-celled creatures to complex creatures. Those types emerged through some process. Conventional wisdom is that survival of the fittest traits through natural selection and mutation provided a mechanism for different expressions of animal life.
I reject conventional wisdom on this point. Conventional wisdom has been proven wrong in the past, and I strongly believe that 100 years from now, the idea of Darwinian Evolution as the mechanism for emergence of different types of creatures will be laughable.
How do we determine if someone is dead? This is an excellent question, and one that is staunchly debated both in the scientific and philosophical camps these days. With the body's reaction to hypothermia, it's quite difficult to tell if someone is revivable or not.
There is what could be considered a magic moment when neurons start to form in the cerebrum. Yes, but this is a slippery slope as well. Why just when the brain formation is sufficient to create or receive impulses? Why not defer until the fetus is able to feel pain or have emotions?
These are practically indescernable, whereas the completion of the requisite genetic information for life is a clear, hard line. Again, all it takes from that moment is shelter and food.
I don't want to be pedantic or toy with semantics, but I disagree with you on your definition of supernatural.
Dictionary.com has the following first definition for "supernatural", pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
You suggest that it means "unknowable" I disagree. I believe it means not explainable through natural phenomena. Let's say that all life on this planet was "planted" here by aliens. (Some believe that this is the case.) This would be an unnatural means of speciation and arrival of life. It would be "supernatural," undetectable, and unquantifiable save finding incontrovertible evidence of that intervention.
because everything knowable is natural Really? Can you measure fear, respect, love, duty, honor, trust, or contentment? Have you ever known any of them? Are they quantifiable? NO! Can they explain irrational behavior? YES!
Not all that is knowable is quantifiable. "The heart has it's reasons which reason cannot know" Pascal, Pensees
if abortion is wrong, then we have a terrible tragedy on our hands Yes. That is my view.
fewer than 25% of zygotes become people I'm not sure that I can agree with that number, because I think it's smaller than that (something like 30% die, not 75%)- but your point is valid - it's still death.
don't the zygotes die sinless, and therefore go to heaven The bible teaches that we are all sinners as a result of Adam's sin, even in the womb. As far as heaven is concerned, it's an "in-house debate" in Christian circles. On that point, my view is that God is Just, and will not do anything unjust about anyone who dies.
Is your follow-on point that if they die and go to heaven it's no big deal, because they are in heaven?
Let me address a couple of points you raise: 1. the reason they hate abortion has nothing to do with fetuses and everything to do with hating young, promiscuous girls Nope. Not even close. The issue for me, as a Bible-believing, "fundamentalist" Christian is that human life is sacred - that is - set apart and special according to God. Science teaches us that once the sperm penetrates the egg, all that is necessary for the birth of a human baby is food and shelter. All of the genetic information is present at conception, and there is no scientifically identifiable magic moment when a fetus "becomes" a person. Legally the standard is birth, but that's a legal distinction, not a scientific one. As far as I am concerned, there is no moral difference between ending the life of a fetus and me killing my six year old son. To be sure, there is a legal difference, but that does not make either morally right.
This view has *nothing* to do with the sexual activity of girls or anyone else.
2. Evolution complaints, near as I can tell, are about it undermining the authority of God and the Bible Evolutionists and hard-core creationists have the same data. We differ as to the cause of the data, but we share the same facts. There are scientific challenges to the evolutionary position, and scientific challenges to the creationist position. In the end, neither the evolutionist nor the creationist was able to observe the mechanism of speciation, and so neither has a scientifically-verifiable or testable theory about speciation. You may not like my explanation, but frankly my non-testable theory is as valid as evolution's non-testable theory.
Standard disclaimer - of course variation and natural selection affect the characteristics of animals. This is observable - testable, and one would be a fool not to acknowledge that this is factual. Simple acknowledgment that this is a fact does not mean that speciation occurred according to the evolutionistic theory.
It's true that I reject evolution as a means of speciation on the basis of my philosophy, but there's more than pure religious reason to reject it as well. Just because many people unquestioningly accept speciation through time natural selection and genetic mutation does not make it true. I submit to you that it's my belief that people with an a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism hang on to evolution fundamentally because they don't want to believe that there's a supernatural explanation. Evolution is essentially a terrible means of speciation, but it's more palatable than admitting that we all may have emerged through supernatural means.
3. treat the creation story as metaphorical There is a view called theistic evolution which essentially does this. It does not wash from a Christian perspective. It cannot work logically. Please bear with me while I explain.
Whether you agree with it or not, this is what Christians believe: a) God created the earth, animals, and two people b) God gave those people the opportunity to choose between obeying Him and pleasing themselves in the one area where He set a boundary for them. c) Those two people chose their own way rather than God's, and lost their relationship with Him because of it. d) God so loved the world (mankind) that He gave His only Son so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but will have everlasting life.
Whether or not you agree with it, the Bible is clear that mankind needed Jesus Christ to make a way to restore man's relationship with God. The relationship for all men was broken because of the sin of a literal person in a literal place. The Bible also says very clearly that death came to earth as a result of sin. The first recorded death biblically is when God killed animals to make a covering for the naked Adam and Eve. The Bible teaches that "without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin. Evolution teaches that death preceded mankind by centuries.
When there were tax credits for solar usage - and the technology grew and "everyone" adopted it. See? It's been 30 years, and the tax-credit thing was perfect.
My CU recently added "more security" to my account. I need to jump through a couple of hoops to have them write some kind of cookie to my PC. In order to improve the hoops, they asked me some "password challenge" questions.
When I went to log into my account from a second PC, their system asked me the challenge questions. For elementary school attended, did I answer "jones" or "jones elementary" or "jones elementary school" or "Jones" (you get the idea)
At any rate, since my answers the second time failed to exactly match, my account was locked and I had to call the customer service number to get my account unlocked. They reset my challenge questions, and told me that lots of people are having this problem. As a result the CSRs tell people to answer those questions with a single word, and to USE THE SAME WORD FOR EVERY ANSWER!
There is not now, nor has there ever been *any* evidence to support the hypothesis of a worldwide flood, not a jot, Really? Are you sure? Just because you are unfamiliar with the existence of evidence does not mean that it does not exist. People who have preconceived notions about the facts tend to overlook or ignore evidence that does not match those notions.
I'd respectfully suggest that you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of. I admit my bias. Will you admit yours?
Slashdot Mirror
You indicated that I didn't understand ./ culture. As if perhaps I was a newcomer to the party. I'm not, and UID is an indication of how recently we've joined the community. I am aware of the conventional wisdom espoused here, and disagree on this point as it applies to this particular discussion.
How much fun would it be to have a community where everyone was in complete agreement all of the time?
It's not that technology could solve the social issue, it's that there's a way in which technology could be applied to address some aspects of a social issue. It makes perfect sense to me to do that. It is antithetical to your thinking to do that to address this issue. Fair enough. We disagree.
I don't think this is accurate. I believe the majority of traffic nowadays is due to BitTorrent. NNTP isn't that far behind HTTP, either, so saying "vast majority" isn't right.
OK, so "vast majority" in terms of raw bit count - of course you're right. "Vast majority" in terms of pictures? Absolutely http(s)
What you're saying on this point is factually accurate, but irrelevant to the discussion.
The fact that I can download images of DVDs, TV shows, music, or anything else is irrelevant because the majority of views on the intarweb are through a browser, and filtering that would accomplish my goals, even if bittorrent and nntp are huge bandwidth hogs.
FWIW, I'm not going to let my kids have access to unrestricted nntp feeds, either. There's lots of crap out there.
If your goal is to filter the Interweb, PICS labels were designed for this purpose,
Great. How many sites use that?
or if you don't want to wait on sites to label, there's lots of filtering software out there.
And while I'm comfortable with my implementation and management of squid/dansguardian plus custom filters, most parents could not possibly figure out how that works. I work in IT at a Fortune 100 company, and most of my coworkers couldn't do it. (Outside of the small percentage of really geeky ones.)
These parents should make it clear that the demand exists, and ISPs will offer these services.
Most parents eyes glaze over when geeks start to talk about IP addresses. They are not informed enough to talk about PICS labels.
Why don't we leave the technical details to the people that actually understand how the Internet works?
It's not the same as foam engine blocks. There frankly is little reason from a technical perspective that this would not be feasible. I get that people get ticked when some piddly group like a state government tries to define technology standards for the whole world, but porn and violent content are a major problem and should be filtered from people who need the filters. (You don't want to be filtered? OK by me. What you pollute your brain with is your business - within limits.)
Current technology is pretty crappy when it comes to filtering, and it makes sense to me that passing some laws about how to characterize the content is an attempt to address the real issue.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
This is the reason that we here on /. bristle when societal issues are being solved by technical measures
Riiiiight. 'cause you've been a part of the community for so long, and I'm such a newcomer that I fail to understand the culture here. Uh Huh.
1. Ports are for services. Pragmatically, the vast majority of content is served via http and https. It really matters little what content is served over gopher. Even if lots and lots of content is provided over these "other" protocols, moving porn to non-80 and non-443 ports will make a huge difference. Your attempted point about breaking attachments is quite silly.
:)
2. the Internet needs -- it needs parents who discipline their children for doing things children shouldn't do.
I could not agree more that parents need to do the job of parenting, but can you see that putting some structure around content makes the job of parenting easier? I can sign up for cable and use parental controls to block my kids from recording and watching content with certain ratings. This system is imperfect - I think that the ratings are not strict enough, frankly not all content has ratings, and sometimes the ratings seem silly. Should mythbusters be PG? Identifying so-called "adult" content with metadata or by putting (most of) it on another "channel" would make creation of systems to limit access much simpler.
Carp about irresponsible parents if you will, but the tools to do this job which are available today are quite weak, and most parents don't have the technology cops to set up dansguardian and squid, or even configure their routers to block free access to surfing the web. We have the technology, why not make their lives simpler?
Once it's simple, we can really condemn those evil selfish parents for not parenting!
Clearly it's not perfect, but if the majority of that content was segregated, then it would make filtering easier.
Making alcohol and cigarettes illegal for minors does not keep all kids from drinking and smoking, but it does keep lots of kids from doing things that can be harmful to them.
Moving most porn content to an easily identifiable place would help simplify filtering for those of us who want to filter. Perfect? No. Better than current state? Yes.
FWIW, my kids have never been to Toys R Us without me, and I do know exactly what they are doing on line. I love them, and it's my job to look out for them.
you don't find a lot of porn by accident
Explain to me why the acronym NSFW was created.
You never get unsolicited emails that have porn photos?
I'd love to have a child-safe internet channel where content was intentionally restricted.
I grew up in appalachia, and have a deep love for the mountains of which you are speaking. While I do agree with you completely that the term genocide is wildly inaccurate, and in principle, rearranging rocks is not a big deal, even when done on a big scale; I take issue with the idea that mountaintop removal has no real environmental impact.
Please note that I am FAR from an environmentalist. I believe that we need to be responsible with the environment, balancing that with the energy needs that we have. We cannot return to an agrarian society which uses only renewable resources.
Factually, abandoned mines do leave acid runoff which does affect streams. While I make no assertion that the Charleston Gazette is unbiased in this matter, the linked article also contains links to a report from the Department of Environmental Potection about the cleanup costs.
In summary, while I believe that your points are valid, it's also valid to acknowledge that a legitimate business cost is the cleanup efforts which must be undertaken after the coal is removed so that the streams are unpolluted.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
In meatspace, we already have constraints on distribution channels for so-called "adult" material. I can send my kid to Toys R Us and know that he won't find porn. (I think that there are lots of problems with the junk sold there, but porn is not one of them.)
Why not also provide a mechanism for segregating content? The link to the RFC was simply silly. People who own this "adult" content want to make money from it, and they can be held accountable, unlike the idiots who pseudo-anonymously hack systems.
It's not censorship, it's segregation. This is normative in meatspace, why should it be different in cyberspace?
As a parent, I like the idea that I could install a port blocker at home and block the majority of porn content. I already have a content filter in place that blocks access to pages based on content (porn, violence, etc) and if something like this can make filtering content easier, without significantly restricting access to those people who want that content, what's the big deal?
I shop CompUSA - although I'm not a great customer - I shop the rebate sales and actually complete the rebate paperwork, and no, I don't buy the regularly priced merchandise while I'm there.
:)
I find that they don't consistently post pricing for items, and their customer service is terrible. Ever order over the web for in store pickup? I keep going to the store hours after placing the order and then waiting in line for the management to task a sales clerk to go fetch the products from the shelves. Ick.
They don't know their products, nor do they know where the inventory is, they advertise products at a cheap price that are sold out when I arrive 2 hours after store opening (and when their inventory system says that they have items in stock.) They have been doing an awful job of meeting the market needs, and this is what happens in a competitive market.
I hope that a well stocked, fair priced alternative arrives. Shockingly, I'd pay more for good quality products, skilled sales people, and efficient customer service when I go to a store. I concluded long ago that this was out of the question for CompUSA, and decided to work the angles for cheap after-rebate merchandise from them while waiting for them to collapse.
It's the old Montgomery Wards -> Sears story repeated a hundred years later. Wards was a huge mail order powerhouse, but were upstaged by technology and marketing powerhouse Sears when they didn't adapt to new technology and business models in time. Of course the same thing happened to Sears, too.
Good by, CompUSA. Hello Buy.com, NewEgg, and Fry's!
We could spend weeks on this - frankly even defining the terms we are using and making sure that we mean the same thing would take that much time.
It's not that I misunderstand the mechanics of the evolutionary theory. I've done a good deal of reading on the subject and have audited an undergraduate comparative evolution class. I find the theory lacks credibility for a number of reasons. Just because it's widely accepted does not make it right.
Their statement is identical to the claim that however much we breed mammals, the result is always mammals. And it has been!
Precisely. This is why it is not credible to say that if we have minute changes which are favorable, and those changes occur over a long enough time frame, a new creature emerges which is fundamentally different from the creature up the chain. This is true even if you "start" with a creature that is not as complex as a mammal. To suggest that all creatures today came to be as a result of simple creatures who were modified a little at a time and got more complex in the process is.... ridiculous.
Furthermore, punctuated equilibrium was proposed because a philosophical naturalist named Gould concluded that "philetic gradualism" "was never seen in the rocks" so he proposed that even kookier theory.
Look. We disagree. We're not going to agree. I believe that you're smart, educated, and absolutely convinced that your worldview is correct. I just find that perspective incredible (e.g. lacking credibility.) You are entitled to your opinion, and I respect that.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
so as to be one of the most certain things we can know about anything
Science is not about the known, it's about the proposed which seems to fit the facts and has not yet been disproven. I never suggested that the information I presented above was factual - I said my information was not sufficiently credible to prove my case, but merely asked if there was another option.
The evidence is clear where the dinosaurs were (pretty much all over the planet, which at the time had a very different continental composure than now in a way that would be impossible to move within a few thousand years without literally ripping the upper crust of the earth apart) and that they dominated their ecosystem: one which lasted for millions and millions of years.
This is an incredibly bold statement. What evidence do you offer to support this concept?
I believe that a few thousand years ago the earth experienced a global geological event which dramatically changed the landscape and ecosystem - perhaps even ripping the upper crust of the world apart and a worldwide flood occurred.
I mean no disrespect, but your argument is absurd. It's not a genetic recipe, it's the creation of a person - a unique person - as long as food and shelter are present, a BABY is born. To suggest otherwise is written smoke and mirrors. While you throw around scientific terms, the information above is inaccurate and misleading.
You basically imply that the equivalent of the holocaust is going on all around you, and yet all you do is complain about it?
Well, since you don't know me, you don't know if that's all I do.
FWIW, I put my money where my mouth is.
I advocate good parenting, foster care and adoption, even traveling internationally to teach on these topics. I provide financial support to women in "crisis pregnancy" and strongly encourage people to adopt unwanted children. I provide financial and emotional support to communities internationally where I am legally prevented from adopting orphans, but I can send money and send hope.
I have supported my family members as they have adopted children. There are over 100 million orphans worldwide, with many parents dying daily, and it's a crisis that people are not caring for these kids. In the future I plan to be a foster parent and may also adopt children. Presently I have five biological kids six and under, so my plate is a little full, but when my kids get bigger, there will be more I can do.
I financially support organizations that provide education about the horror of abortion, and counseling for the women and men who have made that choice.
You will note that I don't take any action against women who have abortions, nor do I intervene in so-called clinics which leave one dead and one wounded. At this time, this practice, while horrible, is legal in this country and the majority of Americans want it to continue to be legal. I can educate others and hope to win enough hearts to my way of thinking that this practice is changed, but there are limits to what one can legally do, even if there are millions of murders occurring around me.
So, before you go shooting off your mouth about topics on which you are ignorant, you might consider that there are people who are passionate on these topics *and* who take action. The kind of activism I engage in doesn't make the news like when kooks shoot doctors, but it does make a difference in the lives of women, men and children.
Just because some people talk and do nothing does not mean that people who disagree with you are thoughtless and lazy.
My take on this is that it's merely an example of adaptation or "microevolution." We don't see these birds in transition to something radically different, merely to variants of the original kind - a specific kind of bird.
:)
As I said earlier, there's no debate about minor changes being observable. The point at which I break ranks is where people suggest that the minor changes "add up" to a completely different kind of creature. In order to do this, we'd have to rely on immense amounts of time and favorable mutation. Given the tendency of mutation to be extremely unfavorable, we have to add significantly more time to the process.
There are lots of problems with the "huge amounts of time" solution to the problem. One has to do with the amount of kinetic energy in the universe. If the universe is eternal, why hasn't in equilibrated long ago? Another issue is the lack of graves. If human populations have been around for 100,000 years or more, where are all of the graves? The number of dead people would have to be unbelievably large, given what we know about trends in population growth.
There are many many more unanswered questions like these as well.
Evolution is current conventional wisdom, but I don't buy it. Intellectually there's more to it for me than "God said it. I believe it. That settles it." Although, if there's a God, and He did say it, wouldn't that be enough?
Respectfully,
Anomaly
The Bible contains many different literary styles - some passages are allegorical, some poetic, and some are narrative. The idea of the narrative passages being accurate is very important to me. The Bible tells the story about God and His relationship with mankind - the crown of His creation. It answers the questions:
1. Where did we come from?
2. What went wrong?, and
3. How do we fix it?
If the narrative passages are untrustworthy, then that's a major problem for me. The Bible says that Jesus lived and died for the purpose of reconciling sinful man to a perfect God. It's not about good stories or moral examples - it's about how I can personally be reconciled to my mortal enemy.
If Jesus didn't really live, or was not resurrected from the dead, then...
I Cor 15:16-17 "if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins."
The fact of Jesus' life, death and resurrection is fundamental to my faith.
It's a VERY big deal.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
You're basing your opinion on the lack of cave paintings? What about deterioration of the paintings which included them? Caves are notoriously wet.
What about the possibility that we have not found caves with the images?
The Bible mentions a "behemoth" like a dinosaur and "leviathan" perhaps a great monster of the sea - in Job 40 and 41. Many people feel that these are descriptions of dinosaurs. I'm not saying that I consider that to be strong evidence, but it is a possible occurrence of dinosaurs in biblical literature.
I have also heard of fossils found (I believe in Texas, but I'm digging deep in my memory now) with human footprints inside of dinosaur footprints.
Isn't it *possible* that man and dinosaurs were on the planet at the same time? Perhaps they were not in the same place much, and that's why literature seems to have little evidence?
I'm not saying that my evidence is convincing, just that your case is a bit weak.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
In your metaphorical view, was Jesus a real person? I ask because this, along with His deity is a critical question to the teachings of Christianity.
I don't remember that applying to pre-birth (particularly because nearly nothing does... the times). Do you know where it says that?
Psalm 51:5 "Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me."
Romans 3:23 "for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God"
Romans 5:12 "Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned"
the metaphorical interpretation of the creation story is more prevalent then you think.
Sure, but that doesn't make it true. As I explained in my posting above, if you are an adherent to Christianity, it's not logical to make the Eden story an allegory. You have to torture the text and twist the logic to make it work.
When Jesus was asked about marriage, he quoted Genesis. If Genesis was allegory, why would He appeal to the creation account as if it was fact? Sure, he spoke in parables sometimes, but other times He spoke in a direct way. The marriage response is NOT in the form of a parable.
you can't be a scientist if you think dinosaur bones were planted to fool with us, and that carbon dating is baloney
First, I think that dinosaurs lived concurrently with man. Dinosaur fossils are fact, and it would be foolish to suggest otherwise.
Secondly, carbon dating is based on three things:
a) the amount of C14 present today in the sample
b) the rate of decay of C14 being constant, and
c) the original amount of C14 in the sample
We can be sure of a), we can frankly only estimate c) and isn't it possible that there were conditions that may have altered b) since the sample was formed?
It's not that the process is flawed, it's that the assumptions may not be valid. Carbon dating is not infallible. Many times radically different dates are estimated for samples from the same thing. Dates that are too close to now are thrown out as error, because of the preconceived notion that the earth is REALLY old.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
You're either playing word games, or just hung up on the fact that I used the word "speciation."
My point is that science has NOT observed major evolutionary change - from a fish to a bird, or a dog to a cat or whatever the theory is these days. It has not been observed in the lab, we have not seen punctuated equilibrium, or any other major change. We have seen minor changes in the form of adaptation.
Whether you have a hard boundary, use the term species, or any other distinction, it's all irrelevant to the fact that there are major differences today in the creatures who exist.
Have you no knowledge of history? Prior to Darwin, yours was the conventional wisdom.
I am aware of that fact, and I believe that CW will return to that point of view after this flirtation with philosophic naturalism has ended.
Evidence for it (the DNA mechanism, fossil records and geology, etc.) has been increasing ever since.
Interesting that you would bring that claim forward. As I said in my initial posting, creationists and evolutionists share the facts and differ in theory about the cause of the observable facts.
DNA is phenomenally information-dense - more information-dense than anything else in the universe. This collection of ordered knowlege points to a designer as far as I'm concerned. In general we see things naturally move from order to disorder, and DNA seems opposite to what is naturally expected.
Irreducible complexity points to simultaneous emergence of interdependent traits which seems to indicate a designer. (Retina/rods/cones/optic nerve, brain capability to interpret these signals, etc)
The fossil record contains the cambrian explosion, which in my view is evidence for a large number of kinds/species/types/diverse life/etc which appear suddenly as if they were created simultaneously.
Recent geologic research indicates that perhaps our understanding and interpretation of the events and mechanics of geologic change are more complex, and also perhaps simpler than expected. Was the grand canyon created through gradual erosion? Take a look at the observed events surrounding the eruption of Mt. St. Helens and the canyon formed in days that is something like 1:20 scale of the Grand Canyon. Over the next few years we saw geologic layers laid down over months rather than years, and what happened to the trees in Spirit Lake helps explain fossils which cross geologic layers. This may indicate that earth's geologic layers were laid down in substantially less time than has been imagined previously.
The collected facts are increasing, but they don't necessarily fall in favor of evolution.
undo Galileo and Copernicus while we're at it.
With all due respect, I'm a proponent of GOOD science. Much of what we know today has been the product of unbiased research by men of science who were also men of faith. The official church has done bad things in the past, but Christianity is not incompatible with science. My issue is with those who demand to apply their philosophy to their scientific practice.
You do realize you'll have to convince the Catholics to revert, don't you?
No disrespect to Roman Catholics is intended here, but their view is irrelevant to me. If the official church position is wrong, that's their problem to solve, not mine.
Science doesn't consider species as hard lines; they're a notational convenience, nothing more
And this is a distinction without a difference as far as I'm concerned.
My point about speciation is that there are LOTS of different types of animals out there - cats, dogs, whales, etc. I know that an evolutionary world view sees them all as roughly the same - because according to evolutionary theory they all came from the original single-celled creatures. This is simply not relevant to the discussion. Regardless of the terminology used to describe the different kinds of animals we see, we DO see different types.
I fundamentally disagree with the notion that all life emerged from soup to single-celled creatures to complex creatures. Those types emerged through some process. Conventional wisdom is that survival of the fittest traits through natural selection and mutation provided a mechanism for different expressions of animal life.
I reject conventional wisdom on this point. Conventional wisdom has been proven wrong in the past, and I strongly believe that 100 years from now, the idea of Darwinian Evolution as the mechanism for emergence of different types of creatures will be laughable.
How do we determine if someone is dead?
This is an excellent question, and one that is staunchly debated both in the scientific and philosophical camps these days. With the body's reaction to hypothermia, it's quite difficult to tell if someone is revivable or not.
There is what could be considered a magic moment when neurons start to form in the cerebrum.
Yes, but this is a slippery slope as well. Why just when the brain formation is sufficient to create or receive impulses? Why not defer until the fetus is able to feel pain or have emotions?
These are practically indescernable, whereas the completion of the requisite genetic information for life is a clear, hard line. Again, all it takes from that moment is shelter and food.
Respectfully,
Anomaly
I don't want to be pedantic or toy with semantics, but I disagree with you on your definition of supernatural.
Dictionary.com has the following first definition for "supernatural",
pertaining to, or being above or beyond what is natural; unexplainable by natural law or phenomena; abnormal.
You suggest that it means "unknowable" I disagree. I believe it means not explainable through natural phenomena. Let's say that all life on this planet was "planted" here by aliens. (Some believe that this is the case.) This would be an unnatural means of speciation and arrival of life. It would be "supernatural," undetectable, and unquantifiable save finding incontrovertible evidence of that intervention.
because everything knowable is natural
Really? Can you measure fear, respect, love, duty, honor, trust, or contentment? Have you ever known any of them? Are they quantifiable? NO! Can they explain irrational behavior? YES!
Not all that is knowable is quantifiable. "The heart has it's reasons which reason cannot know" Pascal, Pensees
Respectfully,
Anomaly
if abortion is wrong, then we have a terrible tragedy on our hands
Yes. That is my view.
fewer than 25% of zygotes become people
I'm not sure that I can agree with that number, because I think it's smaller than that (something like 30% die, not 75%)- but your point is valid - it's still death.
don't the zygotes die sinless, and therefore go to heaven
The bible teaches that we are all sinners as a result of Adam's sin, even in the womb. As far as heaven is concerned, it's an "in-house debate" in Christian circles. On that point, my view is that God is Just, and will not do anything unjust about anyone who dies.
Is your follow-on point that if they die and go to heaven it's no big deal, because they are in heaven?
Let me address a couple of points you raise:
1. the reason they hate abortion has nothing to do with fetuses and everything to do with hating young, promiscuous girls
Nope. Not even close. The issue for me, as a Bible-believing, "fundamentalist" Christian is that human life is sacred - that is - set apart and special according to God. Science teaches us that once the sperm penetrates the egg, all that is necessary for the birth of a human baby is food and shelter. All of the genetic information is present at conception, and there is no scientifically identifiable magic moment when a fetus "becomes" a person. Legally the standard is birth, but that's a legal distinction, not a scientific one. As far as I am concerned, there is no moral difference between ending the life of a fetus and me killing my six year old son. To be sure, there is a legal difference, but that does not make either morally right.
This view has *nothing* to do with the sexual activity of girls or anyone else.
2. Evolution complaints, near as I can tell, are about it undermining the authority of God and the Bible
Evolutionists and hard-core creationists have the same data. We differ as to the cause of the data, but we share the same facts. There are scientific challenges to the evolutionary position, and scientific challenges to the creationist position. In the end, neither the evolutionist nor the creationist was able to observe the mechanism of speciation, and so neither has a scientifically-verifiable or testable theory about speciation. You may not like my explanation, but frankly my non-testable theory is as valid as evolution's non-testable theory.
Standard disclaimer - of course variation and natural selection affect the characteristics of animals. This is observable - testable, and one would be a fool not to acknowledge that this is factual. Simple acknowledgment that this is a fact does not mean that speciation occurred according to the evolutionistic theory.
It's true that I reject evolution as a means of speciation on the basis of my philosophy, but there's more than pure religious reason to reject it as well. Just because many people unquestioningly accept speciation through time natural selection and genetic mutation does not make it true. I submit to you that it's my belief that people with an a priori commitment to philosophical naturalism hang on to evolution fundamentally because they don't want to believe that there's a supernatural explanation. Evolution is essentially a terrible means of speciation, but it's more palatable than admitting that we all may have emerged through supernatural means.
3. treat the creation story as metaphorical
There is a view called theistic evolution which essentially does this. It does not wash from a Christian perspective. It cannot work logically. Please bear with me while I explain.
Whether you agree with it or not, this is what Christians believe:
a) God created the earth, animals, and two people
b) God gave those people the opportunity to choose between obeying Him and pleasing themselves in the one area where He set a boundary for them.
c) Those two people chose their own way rather than God's, and lost their relationship with Him because of it.
d) God so loved the world (mankind) that He gave His only Son so that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but will have everlasting life.
Whether or not you agree with it, the Bible is clear that mankind needed Jesus Christ to make a way to restore man's relationship with God. The relationship for all men was broken because of the sin of a literal person in a literal place. The Bible also says very clearly that death came to earth as a result of sin. The first recorded death biblically is when God killed animals to make a covering for the naked Adam and Eve. The Bible teaches that "without the shedding of blood there can be no forgiveness of sin. Evolution teaches that death preceded mankind by centuries.
Also, if you make Eden a
When there were tax credits for solar usage - and the technology grew and "everyone" adopted it. See? It's been 30 years, and the tax-credit thing was perfect.
Remind me... Why am I not running solar at home?
My CU recently added "more security" to my account. I need to jump through a couple of hoops to have them write some kind of cookie to my PC. In order to improve the hoops, they asked me some "password challenge" questions.
When I went to log into my account from a second PC, their system asked me the challenge questions. For elementary school attended, did I answer "jones" or "jones elementary" or "jones elementary school" or "Jones" (you get the idea)
At any rate, since my answers the second time failed to exactly match, my account was locked and I had to call the customer service number to get my account unlocked. They reset my challenge questions, and told me that lots of people are having this problem. As a result the CSRs tell people to answer those questions with a single word, and to USE THE SAME WORD FOR EVERY ANSWER!
This system is broken.
Whatever you do, don't build a broken system.
There is not now, nor has there ever been *any* evidence to support the hypothesis of a worldwide flood, not a jot,
Really? Are you sure? Just because you are unfamiliar with the existence of evidence does not mean that it does not exist. People who have preconceived notions about the facts tend to overlook or ignore evidence that does not match those notions.
I'd respectfully suggest that you are guilty of exactly what you accuse me of. I admit my bias. Will you admit yours?
Regards,
Anomaly