warri0r45

You know you have an incredible ability to completely sidestep what I'm saying and throw around red herrings. It was nice talking to you myself.

My government is currently planning to set-up the same Internet Censorship that is in place in China. A national filter will block "Unwanted Content" (their term not mine) however unlike China we do have a small amount of democracy and people are fighting back, it is the Internet that allows us to organise our protests, petitions, letters and rally further support. Without the free-speech the internet offers us, resistance would not be possible because we simply would not have the tool to get the word out. http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/30/au ... -internet/ http://www.nocleanfeed.com/ We will become the first Western Democracy to have oppressive internet censorship. I remember Steven Conroy saying that the trial (to start later this month) will also block "unwanted content", but I'm wondering if such content is merely designed to be part of the opt-out filter for children? Do you know for sure that he wants to make this "unwanted" content part of the compulsary filter along with the illegal stuff? Special interest groups are already lining up to have their personal grievances blacklisted. I have tried to obtain this list of illegal websites myself but it is exempt from freedom of information requests, the fact that it's not open to public audit speaks volumes. We lose free-speech if the ability to block content even exists, because such a system will always be abused by extreme pro-censorship groups. The biggest argument against free-speech is "Think of the Children" which is ironic because that's exactly what I am doing. I want future generations to enjoy the freedoms I did, and live in a democracy like I do/did. The minister has suggested that people against the censorship, are supporting child pornography. When nothing could be further from the truth. Humans are stupid by nature and simply suggesting a link between anti-censorship and child pornography causes the uneducated majority to really behind the censorship scheme. However if you ask those same people whether they think they should have free speech, the general response is the exact opposite. This highlights a drastic shortage of intelligence in today's society. I can understand why they wouldn't release the list - they can't exactly go around promoting child porn links. Anyway, here's the official response, from the government link I provided above: Of course I don't agree with pro-censorship lobbyists that want porn banned for example, but I'm pretty sure there is a distinction between the 10,000 URLs being blocked for the trial ("unwanted content") and the blacklist that will be implemented for real (illegal content). The department has said that it has no plans to expand the types of material that can be on the blacklist, and such an expansion requires an act of Parliament (see Q #24 of my previous link). Respond to what I said if you could please, bearing in mind my post before this one.

If that's the topic of the documentary, then you'd have to correct any misrepresentations of the truth. Essentially the documentary claims a lot of things about both intelligent design and evolution that aren't true, and sets up a false dilemma between the two while ignoring the middle ground. It also seems to suggest that science classes ought to teach philosophy (i.e. the purpose of life, which science doesn't answer yet leaves to philosophers and priests) and even goes so far as to insinuate that by not doing so, science is some sort of indoctrination program to teach kids that life has no purpose, which is completely ridiculous. What science does teach is the natural mechanisms by which life evolves over time, i.e. the testable mechanisms, which is what science is limited to by definition. You can easily believe in a god and evolution, yet to reiterate, the film doesn't say anything about this view (theistic evolution). It's also another mouthpiece for scientific illiteracy in that it doesn't give an accurate depiction of what "scientific theory" means and it contrasts "theory" with "fact" as if theories grow up to become facts, which isn't true. I take issue with this. The central claim of creationism is that god created everything, which by it's nature isn't a testable claim. Ask yourself this: can I study the ability of god to create things? Could I design an experiment to demonstrate the efficacy of this mechanism of creation? It's just not possible, save for god literally coming down from the sky and showing us all. By contrast, I can test natural selection by seeing if/how allele frequencies of marine fish change upon relocation to fresh water.

My government is currently planning to set-up the same Internet Censorship that is in place in China. A national filter will block "Unwanted Content" (their term not mine) however unlike China we do have a small amount of democracy and people are fighting back, it is the Internet that allows us to organise our protests, petitions, letters and rally further support. Without the free-speech the internet offers us, resistance would not be possible because we simply would not have the tool to get the word out. http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/30/au ... -internet/ http://www.nocleanfeed.com/ We will become the first Western Democracy to have oppressive internet censorship. I remember Steven Conroy saying that the trial (to start later this month) will also block "unwanted content", but I'm wondering if such content is merely designed to be part of the opt-out filter for children? Do you know for sure that he wants to make this "unwanted" content part of the compulsary filter along with the illegal stuff? Just to add, it looks like the trial will extend the blacklist to 10,000 URLs, yet this doesn't mean that the government wants to add this extra "unwanted content" to the blacklist which is to be filtered by ISPs when the plan is implemented for real. The rationale behind filtering more URLs in the trial is that it may have performance implications that need to be tested. Check out the FAQs published by the department (Q #13): [1] I can understand the confustion when the media doesn't clear up the distinction between the trial and the actual policy.

I'm no expert by any means, but perhaps try Dave Brubeck: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=kc34Uj8wlmE http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=faJE92phKzI He experiments with time signatures a lot.

It's the visible range of the spectrum that's used by chlorophyll in photosynthesis. Generally speaking, it absorbs non-green wavelengths well (red and violet particularly, I think) and as a result emits green light. UV light is just energetic enough to mutate DNA, which is generally disastrous for any organism.

Others have beat me to it, but the matter basically comes from water and nutrients (in the soil) and CO2 (in the air). The sunlight only acts as an energy source to drive photosynthesis so the plant can turn H2O and CO2 into sugars. From there it's metabolism can form amino acids, fatty acids and nucleic acids with nitrogen coming from the soil. The whole process is perfectly consistent with natural laws of conservation of matter/energy and thermodynamics.

The 2007 album Psalms of The Moribund by a German brutal-death band called Defeated Sanity. Doesn't actually sounds half bad. :thumbup:

My government is currently planning to set-up the same Internet Censorship that is in place in China. A national filter will block "Unwanted Content" (their term not mine) however unlike China we do have a small amount of democracy and people are fighting back, it is the Internet that allows us to organise our protests, petitions, letters and rally further support. Without the free-speech the internet offers us, resistance would not be possible because we simply would not have the tool to get the word out. http://www.techcrunch.com/2007/12/30/au ... -internet/ http://www.nocleanfeed.com/ We will become the first Western Democracy to have oppressive internet censorship. I remember Steven Conroy saying that the trial (to start later this month) will also block "unwanted content", but I'm wondering if such content is merely designed to be part of the opt-out filter for children? Do you know for sure that he wants to make this "unwanted" content part of the compulsary filter along with the illegal stuff?

Gojira - A cool metal band from France. [hide=]TAw5nWJBNrM [/hide] This song is called Toxic Garbage Island, from their recent release "The Way of All Flesh" (2008).

Christmas, in a secular way. My family generally always does something on Christmas day and we all have a party Christmas eve. It's always nice to go and see all the Christmas lights around the place as well. There's this one guy up the road from me that's been doing it full-on for as long as I can remember. Christmas lights/trees/etc always give you that vibe of "Christmas spirit" or whatever you want to describe it as.

Really? I'd definitely defend Australia if it came down to the threat of direct invasion. As for conscription, I don't support it, but perhaps I could overlook that in a time of war (as in a World War where there is a direct threat to your country). One obvious upside I can see, however, is that the army always seems to be first class in discipline for kids, so in that sense a year or so in the army could be a good thing.

Not trying to brag, but I've seen him play it live, and it is quite a piece of music. :) He really is excellent live if you ever get the chance to see him.

Ditto on the Lamb of God + Metallica suggestions. I also love Textures by Cynic: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=NvlTtnY4-qA

Voice of the Soul by Death comes immediately to mind. It's just so full of emotion and really shows the talent that Chuck Schuldiner had as a guitarist and composer. In fact, I wouldn't discount Cosmic Sea either (another Death instrumental). As far as instrumental albums goes, I really like Machinations of Dementia by Blotted Science. Stunning instrumentation.

Drop by The Day Late. First time listening to these guys, sounds pretty good.

I'm actually talking about which sounds the most brutal, not which has the most extreme people in it.

100% agreed. I think some in America (some notable media personalities come to mind) do people a disservice by labelling them as either purely left or right wing. I remember Chris Rock doing a comedy routine on this issue... I might dig it up later.

Breeding the Spawn by Suffocation (album). Wow. Listening to this masterpiece reminds me of why I love Suffocation. Relentlessly brutal, frantic and technical all at the same time while maintaining first-class song structure. It's true what they say about the production on this album, though (it's very thin/almost non-existent).

Danzig by Danzig (album). Awesome.

Breeding The Spawn by Suffocation: Danzig by Glenn Danzig: War Master by Bolt Thrower: Museum of Human Disease by Grotesque: :)

Man, I love that video. If you like their comedic style, check out their other stuff: http://www.abc.net.au/tv/chaser/war/video/default.htm A bit of the material might be Australia-specific in terms of politics, but still, it's not that in depth and should be easy to follow. Alternately, search "chasers war on everything" in youtube.

A bit of light humour... [hide=]usbNJMUZSwo [/hide]

But you thinked about being a scientist, right? I think this was the order things went for you am I right? 1. I wish I was a scientist. 2. Work hard for being scienties 3. ?Scientist? Now if the number 1 would have been "I don't really want to be scientist" or "i'll never make it" you would have never studied hard and would have failed to get better grades. It's so simple it's stupid almost. But yeah, checked the website and it even has "secret text messages service" available for your cellphone every monday and friday for "only $3.99 per month". :lol: Yeah it's nonsense. But I still think the basic idea it sprouts from is not. What's so special about that, then? There's no secret in that thought process, and that's not what I've interpreted "the secret" to be. Either way, the person who thought up the franchise must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Sounds like utter nonsense to me. The only proven way to get what you want is to work hard for it. No amount of wishing to be a scientist got me good results at uni. It's only when I started to study my [wagon] off that my results started getting better. The main thing I don't like about "the secret" is that it fails dismally to promote a good work ethic. It's perhaps even detrimental to it.