Resolutions

This evening I sat with two of my friends and celebrated the coming of a new year. Two of us have spent this year dealing with varying moments of the process of concluding our marriages, and came as single parent families with children in tow. The other was missing their spouse due to work commitments that would occupy them until 3am on New Year's Day. All of us came as sole representatives of our names.

We drank cider, and tried to control the rabble of children that outnumbered parents 3-to-1. We stumbled over how to fill time until the midnight fireworks, by which time one gaggle of children had already left, and the remainder were beginning to fall into unconsciousness on the living room floor. As soon as the fireworks ended, I helped my eldest find a collection of cards he'd brought, lost, but absolutely had to have for tomorrow, and then gathered my youngest sleeping in my arms and herded them both into the car.

I heralded the new year with friends, but this year it felt like we were soldiers looking back on a long battle behind us. A year's fight is done, but so much has been lost along the way, and the road ahead doesn't lead us back to a comfortable home and a ticker tape parade. We sit in the quiet trenches and look at each other wondering where to from here. Around us lies the fallen remains of friendships that have been lost. Ideals destroyed. Visions shattered. For some of us, we bear the wounds of betrayal - from friends we trusted, colleagues, spouses. Some of us are fed up from watching those we once admired as people of substance crumble and fall around us. All of us have pondered escape, and the sweet aroma of a new beginning in another locale I am sure will see at least one of us absent in years to come.

But as for today; today we are the stalwarts. We are the remaining steadfast few amongst the many of our cohort who said words and made commitments that now are lost; caught in the merciless crossfire of a narcissistic culture. Those who still stand, who still fight, for values they professed when such profession was easy. We are far from perfect, and God knows we are judged for it, but I for one will not fall to the shots of those who have deserted and take aim to appease their guilt. We stand guard over a way of life I believe in, and for the sake of my children I cannot in good conscience avoid the line of fire. I will not back down. I will not surrender. I will not take my life for granted.

Friendship requires trust. Marriage requires faithfulness. Love requires commitment. I will no longer tolerate friends I cannot trust. I will stand against those who are unfaithful to their marriages. And I will commit to love my children, my friends, and my God with all that I am. For me, there is no other way to live - these things I believe in, and I would be less of a man if I were to step away from them.

This is not the direction I intended to go with this post, but it's where I've ended up and I'm content with what I've written. If I can accomplish nothing else this year, I will stand. And if that's not a New Year's Resolution, I don't know what is.

Happy New Year, everyone.

Interpretation

This should have been a tweet, but was too long to fit so I've turned it into a blog post. Basically, several people I follow on twitter have retweeted the following this morning (this is the original tweet):

Now, the statement in essence is true. Google are discontinuing support for Internet Explorer 7. However, this is because they've enacted a policy of only supporting the two latest releases of any supported browser other than Chrome - which is basically IE, Firefox and Safari. The linked article explicitly explains this, and notes that at the same time as they discontinue support for IE7, they're discontinuing support for Safari 3, and Firefox 3.5.

Why is this so irritating to me?  Because the people who wrote the original tweet make it sound like Google are singling out IE7. Which they aren't. So it's not truthful. And I'm big on truthiness.

Blog post done. Go about your day.

Holidays in sunny Port Macquarie

So it's been a long time since I've posted anything, and I fully intend to post something more deserving of being the first post in ages,but I just needed to share this.

My wife and I have been planning a get-away for ages. We booked a holiday in Port Macquarie over 6 months ago, and had my leave booked in and everything. As the time to leave drew close, things started to conspire against us. Projects that should have been well and truly completed at work were delayed massively. My offsider who was going to be holding down the fort at work got called up for jury duty. Some issues arose at home that made going away less appealing. But with unnecessarily high stress we departed, and arrived at Port Macquarie with the intention of trying to forget the stressors at home and spending a week relaxing on the beach.

This is a photo taken from the balcony of our apartment:

This has been the scene for the last 36 hours, and there's no sign of it letting up. We're so bored that my wife is now picking fights with me, and the boys are going completely stir crazy. We're trying to find things to do that are wet weather friendly, but my wife was so set on spending a week at the beach that she'd rather sit and be miserable then do things that we might well be able to do at home like take the boys to a play centre, or go bowling. Luckily, today we're spending time with some extended family but if this doesn't improve, being on holidays might turn out to be an incredibly hard week's work.

Linux on the Dektop, and Open Office

So two things happened today that related to linux and open source software, so I thought I should blog about this, seeing its got me thinking. Please note, that I'm wasting time I could spend gaming to write this (kids in bed, wife at a party) so please feel incredibly privileged.

Part 1: Desktop Linux

So the first thing that happened is a few days back I decided to hunt out a linux distro, and setup a virtual machine. I thought it was about time I got some good solid linux experience, and with all these proponents of desktop linux constantly making noise on various interweb forums, I thought it was time I gave it a good solid try. So I did a search for some distros that might offer me the kind of facility I was looking for - that is, a good desktop environment. A couple of Google searches brought up Xandros linux, and Freespire linux - both which seeed to have the kind of features I might be looking for. I was aware of a few distos (Ubuntu, Red Hat, Yellow Dog) but wanted to look at something that really was aimed at being a desktop for the average joe.

First thing I discovered is that contrary to popular belief, linux is not all free, as in beer. At least, some linux distributions are, and others aren't. I knew that you had to pay for Red Hat on disc, but I thought that was more about it being on a disc then actually needing to pay for the software. It seems funny that software that has basically been crowdsourced over many years can then be profited on simply by throwing in some value add (eg: Freespire includes codecs for common proprietary media formats)
(Edit: I've since been shown that Freespire is in fact one of the free distrobutions - I just was looking in the wrong place.)

Not wanting to pay for the above-mentioned distros, I went back to what I knew: Ubuntu. I've heard several people talk about Ubuntu in a favorable light, and I'm not exactly a novice, so I'm sure I can work it out. So Ubuntu it was. I set about to downloading it, which finished late in the afternoon. I decide to leave it overnight, which then brings us to today.

So I set myself up a virtual machine with a reasonable amount of RAM, and capture the downloaded Ubuntu ISO file to boot the machine. I'm greeted with a menu offering me several options, one of which is "Install Ubuntu". Sounds great. I hit enter on that one. After half a second of thinking, the VM reports a processor error. Ah - OK, probably a graphics issue with the VM. I remember from a previous attempt with Mandrake years ago that sometimes video drivers are tricky. So I hit F4 and select safe video. Same result.

Because this will be very long if I type it all out, basically after literally hours of searching and trying different things, here's what I had to do to get it to boot:

• On the CD boot screen, hit F4 and choose safe video. Then hit F6 and edit the boot commands. Add "noreplace-paravirt forcevesa vga=791" to the boot options. Then choose to Try Ubuntu from the CD.
• Once it booted into the GUI, choose the Install icon.
• When the install finished, restart and quickly press ESC as grub was starting
• Select the default installation item, and press 'e' for edit. Select the kernal options and press 'e' again. Add "noreplace-paravirt forcevesa vga=791" and then press ESC, and then 'b' to boot.
• Once loaded, open a command prompt and type "sudo gedit /boot/grub/menu.lst". Enter password. Add above mentioned command again at the appropriate location. Save this file.
• Open terminal, backup xorg.conf (sudo cp /etc/X11/xorg.conf /etc/X11/xorg.conf.BAK) and then make some substantial edits to get the resolution to function at 1024x768 at 16bpp. This, btw, still isn't working.
• Still in terminal, sudo gedit... a file I now forget, to add an initialisation string to get the sound to work.

Is anyone else seeing why linux is SOOOOOOOO not up to desktop OS standard for average Joe user??? I'm using a VM that presents the guest OS with really basic standard hardware, and the amount of difficulty it has just dealing with it is colossal. I'm still playing around trying to get it to function as I'm typing this. I've now given up on it ever displaying a reasonable resolution and am just trying to get it to start in 800x600 which seems to be its default. And at the moment, it STILL WON'T DO IT. As soon as I log in, my desktop goes all badness.

Part 2: The parent

So today, I get a call from a parent of some students at the school. He says he has two questions for me, and the first is quickly resolved to be that the reason his email to a teacher is bouncing is because he's missing a character from the email address. Awesome, sorted. What's the second issue?

The second issue comes about like this: His child had been given an assessment task at school to create a PowerPoint presentation. Now, at home this guy tells me he avoids Microsoft products like the plague - so they have a Mac, and a couple of machines running Linux, and they use OpenOffice. They may have had a copy of Microsoft Office, I'm not sure, because he did seem to mention it a bit - however, for whatever reason, his child had done their presentation in Impress - the OO.org equivalent of PowerPoint.

Hey, I hear you say, but that's no problem - OpenOffice is 100% compatible with Microsoft Office document formats!

Fail.

You see, it appears Impress has at least one "improved" feature on PowerPoint, and that's the ability to record a narration that runs across the entire presentation, whereas PowerPoint wants you to do it slide-by-slide. Anyway, the point is that this child elected to do their project in a different product, and now, it doesn't work right when he brings it to school.

So what did the parent do? Gave the child a USB stick full of open source software to run on the school computers, so that they can present their project in something other then the proscribed software. Ah. OK then. Well, no harm done I guess. Not that I'm 100% comfortable with a parent undermining our best efforts to give their child a stable and consistent computing platform. We wouldn't want that whole "good management" and "consistency" thing getting in the way of the general anti-MS crusade.

However, the reason for his call wasn't just to tell me this. It was to make the argument that seeing as how Open Office is free and all, and doesn't require your stereotypical Windows install (registry entries, etc.), why don't we just provide it? He said "Couldn't you just put it on a server somewhere there?" Now, for me this was a little bit startling, and started a discussion between him and me that I found a bit disconcerting - primarily, because he wanted me to defend my viewpoint somewhat, and also seemed to be presenting information that I wasn't convinced was accurate. For example, apparently Office 2008 for Mac doesn't offer compliance with Microsoft's own OOXML formats. However, we're using Office 2008 for Mac, and haven't had an issue. He was quite taken aback by this, and indicated that the forums he's read tell him otherwise. Regardless of this, I wasn't really sure why the expectation was that I needed to defend my decision not to provide and support application XYZ to the entire network at a parent's request.

Now, I'm going to wrap this up, because its really long. But basically, I explained that if I was going to deploy something that I needed to be able to endorse its ability to integrate with our other systems, and also had to be able to support it. Neither of these I felt comfortable to do with Open Office, and seeing as we deploy MS Office for our office applications, I didn't really think there was a need. The parent said he understood, and generally we had a pleasant discussion where we presented our own viewpoints. But...

The thing I don't get is why people get like this. We provide some software. It's good software. It works well, and is commonly used by a massive chunk of all organizations worldwide. There's other good software, and if you like it, that's fine. But I personally tend to like some of Microsoft's products, and while I'm aware OpenOffice is a reasonable competitor, I still think Windows and Microsoft Office are far and away the best products for the desktop in their respective markets. Even if you disagree with that, I don't understand the attitude common amongst those who would know what Slashdot is to shun and reject anything that has a Microsoft brand stamped on it.

Just in case you think I'm a diehard Windows fanatic who won't stomach anything else, I'm still persisting with Ubuntu, and shortly (hopefully) will have a couple of Macs in my office to begin work on setting up an appropriate network management strategy for deploying Macs/OSX in our predominantly Windows environment. I'd like our network to be platform agnostic, but I think the more realistic perspective for us is to have multiple interlinked systems for managing common platforms, and that's what I'm going to be working towards. Besides, its all going to be web services shortly anyway, isn't it?

Quicktime is lame

This post was originally constructed in August this year, and was saved as draft. I've added the last paragraph and published. Trying to get rid of some half-written drafts I have. Expect some more soon-ish.

Just a short (edit: not short) Mac bash this morning:
So I turn on my PowerBook this morning, and Apple Software Update comes up with some updates for iTunes and Quicktime and stuff. So I take a look at the update for Quicktime and observe the following:

QuickTime 7.2 addresses critical security issues and delivers:
- Support for full screen viewing in QuickTime Player

Now, this is a feature that has been in, oh I don't know, EVERY other media player since forever. Apple has witheld it up until now, because they want you to pay for Quicktime Pro which DID have this feature. So, to sum up - a feature that has been in every other media player forever is finally introduced into Quicktime today (well, within the last week), negating the need for you to pay Apple extra for it. If you had bought Windows 95 in 1996, you would have got this feature for free, and it's been a staple in Media Player, and every other media player for Windows or Linux (or 3rd party for OSX for that matter) since forever. WHY this wasn't included in Quicktime boils down to greed on the part of Apple.

But hey - this is what I've come to expect from Apple. Upgrades to their IM client are advertised as features of their paid OS upgrade. As opposed to, you know, almost every other IM client which gives you feature updates FOR FREE and for the most part already have MORE FEATURES then iChat. But still, Apple users will use iChat. And this is where I get confused - WHY!?!? And this is not specific to iChat - an advertised improvement in Leopard is having stationary in Apple Mail. Again, there are free mail clients available that do this, and everything else Apple Mail does already - and they're FREE. And sometimes, they WORK BETTER. Just try doing a simple out-of-office notification in Mail. My boss does when he's out of town - I have to check it every day to ensure it hasn't gotten confused and started sending emails to itself.

The list goes on - and features advertised as revolutionary (*cough* Time Machine *cough*) are just the equivilent of pre-existing features in Windows/Linux with a pretty UI. Previous Versions, anyone? In Vista, they've even made it exceedingly simple. Right-click on any file, and:

You can do this on a folder, and actually open and work with previous contents of that older. And if you use Windows Backup, it will record the fact that there are previous versions on specific backups and display them in the list. Revolutionary! Next year's OS, today!

Anyway - this pargraph I'm now typing months after I originally created this post, and as it turns out the great Leopard is held by the Mac zealots in my office as being buggy and unreliable, and as such, no one has upgraded their work machines to it due to software incompatiabilities with Filemaker, which I believe have just recently been resolved with a second patch (that is, they patched it once to get it just to run, and now they've patched it again to get it to work properly). Good times.

A Conversation with a 'New Atheist'

"I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy."
Richard Feynman

"Intellectuals are people who believe that ideas are of more importance than values. That is to say, their own ideas and other people's values."
Gerald Brenan

I've recently, once again, been engaged in conversations with people who espouse as fact, beliefs (and I call them that purposely) gleaned from a reading of Richard Dawkins' "The God Delusion" and possibly some of his other works, or suggested references. This most recent conversation had a very disturbing aspect for me, in that the primary point of contention was Dawkins' belief that religion is a form of mental illness, and that teaching your children about your religion constitutes child abuse, as based on the previous claim. The conversation occurred via a forum, so I had plenty of opportunity to research my counterpoints before I replied each time. In the second last message I posted, I spent hours researching and quoting/citing references regarding the demonstrated medical advantages of having some form of religious/spiritual belief system. From my perspective, this demonstrated that Dawkins' view could be considered to be (purposefully) ignorant of the commonly accepted research on this topic. [see references 1, 2, 3]

However, the person I was having this argument with completely ignored all references I'd made in his reply, and simply restated his belief. He presented no evidence to support his point of view, other then vague generalisations, and a summary of Google search evidence. For example: "I Googled 'religion child abuse', and got over 2 million hits, many of the first few pages from science journals." These rather vague claims I disputed- most of the results I saw for this search were opinion pieces regarding Dawkins' book, and I think number of hits is fairly non indicative of common viewpoints. Especially when your search term would match an article containing the sentence "Therefore, religion should certainly not be considered child abuse."

So why is this disturbing? This person, although he'd completely deny it I'm sure, is one of the New Atheist faithful. Seizing on teachings from Dawkins and his ilk, they will defend their viewpoint with great zeal without actually knowing any of the reasons why they believe it. Ultimately the reason they defend it because of the underlying belief behind the whole movement - that "brights" are somehow of greater value then the rest of us. The following quote is by Dawkins from the Wired article linked from the title of this post:

"Highly intelligent people are mostly atheists," he says. "Not a single member of either house of Congress admits to being an atheist. It just doesn't add up. Either they're stupid, or they're lying. ..."

He seems to have covered the only two options off fairly well, hasn't he? (note: sarcasm)
To suggest that most intelligent people are atheists is certainly not something I'm aware has been qualified by research. What is the metric? The number of students in evolutionary biology courses that would call themselves atheists? I certainly wouldn't qualify under that banner, but my IQ of 136, university degree, and job designing software would suggest that I have at least some kind of intelligence wouldn't it? Or is that immediately disqualified by the fact that I also believe that our presently observable reality is not all there is?

I call your attention to the quote from Richard Feynmen at the start of this post. The existence of God immediately dispels all arguments that have been presented, because all arguments I have seen presented are based on the presupposition that God is not real. This presupposition comes from holding the existence of God up against the scientific method, which is the most stupid idea I personally have ever heard. As stated, on non-science issues, scientists are just as dumb as the next guy. And yet, Dawkins makes brash statements about God being "unlikely" and people believe him because he's a scientist. I'm qualified as a scientist - Computer scientist, that is. If I mix some chemicals together in a lab and tell you that drinking them will cure you from cancer, would you trust me? If so, I suggest you seek help. Your life may be in danger. However, this is what people are doing. Basing their beliefs about the supernatural on the opinions of someone who specialises in one aspect of the natural, and seems to suggest that anything that doesn't fit within his particular model of the universe must be fiction.

My purpose in talking about this is primarily because when I read Dawkins' and others arguments about this issue, I start from the viewpoint of them having some basis in fact, and so have to spend a great deal of time finding the necessary evidence to demonstrate that, particularly in the case of Dawkins, they are driven by misplaced bitterness and/or political agendas which overpower their sense of logic and reason and instead provoke them to present small, subjective, hand-picked subsets of data to support claims that further their cause. I would be far better served to acknowledge the truth: that these people are not interested in the truth. They present themselves as men of science in order to be heard, and then do things that are entirely unscientific to try and establish their case. What physicist when faced with an issue of biology would not ask a biologist? Why then does an evolutionary biologist speak on issues of theology? Of psychology? Surely claims about psychological effects of religion on children would be better authored by someone who had some degree of expertise in the subject matter? And yet, instead we get another "Da Vinci Code" - a work of fiction that the public chooses to believe as fact, in order that they might continue to justify ignoring the true questions of their own existence.

The following is a quote from Albert Mohler. I don't even know who this guy is, but he did a write up[4] on the Wired article I've linked, and I found his assessment below to be rather insightful:

The very fact that Wolf remains unconvinced by the arguments promoted by the New Atheists is itself significant. What Dawkins, Harris, and Dennett--along with the other New Atheists--really demand is that society must place itself in the hands of a new and militant atheistic priesthood. Science as defined by these new priests, would serve as the new sacrament and as the means of salvation.

While New Atheism will invoke science to create a false sense of objectivism, it is ultimately interested in becoming the "religion" of choice. That people will get a sense of value by adhering to its precepts. Ultimately though, science has nothing of permanent value to offer on its own. Knowledge is interesting and valuable, but if this is all there is, you might as well die a ignoramus as a genius. You're still dead. New Atheism is ultimately just a campaign for a new aristocracy of self-proclaimed "brights" with a policy of government-instituted atheism. Absurd? I'd say yes. And it seems that religiosity is not a prerequisite for identifying the absurdity of their claims.

Even those of us who sympathize intellectually have good reasons to wish that the New Atheists continue to seem absurd. If we reject their polemics, if we continue to have respectful conversations even about things we find ridiculous, this doesn't necessarily mean we've lost our convictions or our sanity. It simply reflects our deepest, democratic values. Or, you might say, our bedrock faith: the faith that no matter how confident we are in our beliefs, there's always a chance we could turn out to be wrong.
[from the linked article]

The suggestion that religion is mental illness is not only opposed by a large body of evidence, but it is also popularly unpopular. Adherence to a set of religious beliefs produces people who are healthier, happier[1], more generous with their money and their time[3], and generally of greater good to society as a whole then their atheist/agnostic counterparts.

[references]

[1] http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/186_10_210507/koe10330_fm.html
Medical Journal of Australia summary of the importance of religion/spirituality in health and well being. Links numerous other articles and studies supporting it's stance.

[2] http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt07/haidt07_index.html
Criticism of the New Atheist ideas from an acknowledged atheist, and associate professor of psychology at the University of Virginia. He argues that regardless of the existence of God, religion has been demonstrated to be of positive social value.

[3] http://www.arthurbrooks.net/statistics.html
"People who are religious give more across the board to all causes than
their non-religious counterparts"
"There is a huge “charity gap” that follows religion: On average, religious people are far more generous than secularists with their time and money. This is not just because of giving to
churches—religious people are more generous than secularists towards explicitly non-religious charities as well. They are also more generous in informal ways, such as giving money to family members, and behaving honestly."
See the link for citations supporting this claim.

[4] http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-11-21

As predicted, Microsoft + consoles = big bad.

I've always said that Microsoft's entry to the console market was a bad thing. I've always said that their history in all things PC showed trends that would be highly detremental to what makes console gaming appealing, at least for me. And now, they unveil their latest monstrosity:

So that I'm being fair, this keyboard thingy is an add-on to the controller, but the fact that it exists at all is an abomination. You're putting a keyboard in the hands of a console gamer as he plays games, so that he can type stuff. The implications of this are increadible. For one, it won't be long before developers start using keystrokes to control games - I mean, how handy to be able to select weapons directly without cycling through. But then it will become a requirement for games. And hell, if we're going to make people buy a keyboard, why not a mouse as well? Windows Vista - Xbox edition, anyone? IT'S NOT A PC. IT'S A GAMING CONSOLE!!

Microsoft and gaming is t3h 3v1L, end of story. Their recent moves all parallel their movements in the computing industry, and while I can cope with them for my PC, I'm not willling to do the same for my console. I bought a console for the very fact that it worked different to PCs - one piece of hardware that just works with all games for years, no upgrades, simple control schemes, and a very specific focus - games. Microsoft are making it all about Live. I don't want Live. I want to sit down and play some games - often on my own, uninterrupted by random chat buddies, without needing to type stuff, or make microtransactions. *sigh* It's not going to stop though, is it? My PS3 has a lot of the same stuff now, and as the MS fanbois all cry "Ha ha - we've got and you don't!" Sony will respond by adding that abominable feature to their console, so they can keep up with the Joneses. Meanwhile, I, who love RPGs with epic stories, and really am not overly fussed about online play, will be lost in a rising sea of those who think the defining feature of a game is how many people you can have online to shoot in any one map. Don't get me wrong - I love a good bit of FPS every now and then, but I'd really much rather be playing against half a dozen friends in the same room/house then 40+ people who I've never met on the other side of the world. Why aren't people designing consoles to better facilitate this? Obviously I'm a minority, I guess.

This from the linked article:

Windows Live Messenger, big deal. While the slick friend list integration and nifty keyboard are impressive, the addition of Messenger to the Live service is really more of a harbinger of things to come. Don't be surprised to see your MSN and Hotmail email accounts added to the mix in future updates to Xbox Live and, with a little wheeling and dealing on Microsoft's part, you shouldn't be surprised to see a service like MySpace taking part. Of course, the keypad to me signals the coming of an integrated Web browser.

*sigh* Add a copy of Remote Desktop, and I could do my job on an Xbox360. Awesome. Just what console gaming needs. Not.

Change is a good thing

Watch the linked video. It's hilariously funny, and yet also very disturbing. It makes me not want to ever visit the south of the USA, and although the US was probably my highest ranking wishlist destination when I was younger (Disneyland - I mean, what more could you want?), I've pretty much decided that if I die never having visited the "land of the free" I'll be none the worse for having missed it.

See, the thing that angers me in particular is that videos like this (the Chasers' War on Everything clips also come to mind) solicit similar responses from Americans. They believe that we've singled out the stupid people in their country in order to make them look bad. In the comments, people suggest that the video is staged, that the presenters deserved the violent response they got, that they should be shot for doing what they did. The problem is that Americans don't see the image that the rest of the world has of them and go "oh no... we should really do something to fix that", they see it and decide that we're picking on them. That we're singling them out for ridicule by creating false situations. But it's JUST NOT THE CASE.

If you're a citizen of the USA, and you're reading this, please be aware that you have a really bad image in the rest of the world, and truth be told, you deserve it. Perhaps you could do something about it? Go and vote. Educate your kids about the rest of the world, and identify things about other countries and their cultures that are better then your own. It's just worth identifying that you're not perfect - it reminds you that you should constantly be improving.

Rant done - go about your business, citizens.

First ISPs, and now BANKS.

Following on from my indepth explanation of why my ISP is "t3h suxx0r", let me now explain why banks, or specifically this bank, also are deserving of that title.

I'm a member of emailcash, and although it took me 3 years to earn my first $30 with them, I hopefully will shortly earn my second in about 6 months. Considering the work involved is effectively nil, that's not a bad deal. Anyway, the reason I'm up for cheque number two is that the above-mentioned bank offered me 1000 reward points if I successfully applied for their credit card. After looking into the card's details ($60-something application fee, 9.99% interest on cash/purchases, 0% on balance transfers for 6 months) I thought it sounded like a good deal, and given that the 1000 points would tip me over another $30 emailcash cheque, that sealed the deal.

So I applied. I included on my application the details of my existing credit card balance, and because it was an existing expense, I also included the $200 a fortnight we put into the credit card to pay it off. Bad move, but I'll get to that in a second. Anyway, time passes and eventually I get an email letting me know that my application has been approved and the cards are in the mail. Given the application fee and the second card fee, that brings the total spend to $80.

Today, I decided I'd like some details. Namely, how much have I been approved for, and when will my balance transfer go through? So I give them a call, explain I don't have my card yet, and then ask the first of my two questions. The answer I get is a good $3000 below the balance transfer I'd specified.
{insert shock and frustration}
How flipping stupid can a bank be to not realise that if I want to transfer a balance of x dollars onto a new credit card, that approving me for x - 3000 dollars is not going to make me very happy? How about giving me a call prior to putting the approval through and asking me if I want to go forward? How about asking me how much I'd like to apply for, so that you can deny it if I don't make enough to get that much credit?

Anyway, my only recourse is to wait until the cards arrive and then apply for a reassessment. More time, more details needed, and I'm already $80 out of pocket. I'm not impressed. However, I did realise part of the problem is probably the fact I'd used my fortnightly salary allocation spreadsheet to do my monthly living expences. We put $200 a fortnight on the credit card to try and pay the debt down, but my minimum payment is WAAAAAYYY less then that. Hopefully I can get this resolved quickly. However, I still hold that the bank is completely idiotic for approving an application for a card that logically requires a limit higher then what they're approving. Do you want to make your customers crazy!??! Gah.

My ISP is t3h suxx0r.

So I'm at work today, like most days, and I fire up Internet Explorer which opens about half a dozen tabs of my selected homepages. Two of these, are mailboxes on my mail server at home. Running my own mail server means that if I change ISP, I don't need to change my email address, and that is a good, good thing. So anyway, I'm greeted with that "friendly" screen that indicates the server could not be contacted, and assume the problem must be the connection at home. Every now and then, the connection will drop out and I'll need to tell it to reconnect. No biggy, I'll give my wife a call and we'll get it sorted...

When I call my wife, I learn that she's had no internet all morning, and is quite keen for me to resolve it. So we reboot the modem, and everything comes up as it should, but still no internet access for her, and no mail for me. What's going on?

So I do a tracert to my home server's IP, and what do I find? Please observe:

Tracing route to mail.warners.net.au [202.134.252.185]over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 1 ms 1 ms 1 ms 203.26.89.254
2 1 ms 2 ms 2 ms 192.168.1.1
3 2 ms 8 ms 202.59.24.50
4 4 ms 4 ms 4 ms 202.59.16.49
5 255 ms 315 ms 343 ms 61.31.59.202.static.soulaustralia.com.au [202.59.31.61]
6 12 ms 11 ms 11 ms 97.25.194.203.static.comindico.com.au [203.194.25.97]
7 11 ms 11 ms 11 ms ge6-2.bdr03-kent-syd.comindico.com.au [203.194.28.249]
8 13 ms 11 ms 28 ms POS2-1-0.un1.optus.net.au [202.139.129.221]
9 20 ms 25 ms 31 ms ge-wan5-1.o2gsc76f03.optus.net.au [61.88.178.230]
10 13 ms 17 ms 13 ms 59.154.19.54
11 14 ms 15 ms 20 ms ains-202-126-99-205.ains.net.au [202.126.99.205]
12 19 ms 16 ms 15 ms ains-l2tp-lns2-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.99]
13 18 ms 15 ms 15 ms nbb-nbrt20201-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.209]
14 79 ms 49 ms 54 ms ains-l2tp-lns1-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.210]
15 19 ms 21 ms 18 ms nbb-nbrt20201-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.209]
16 18 ms 15 ms 19 ms ains-l2tp-lns1-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.210]
17 24 ms 16 ms 25 ms nbb-nbrt20201-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.209]
18 37 ms 42 ms 42 ms ains-l2tp-lns1-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.210]
19 23 ms 21 ms 19 ms nbb-nbrt20201-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.209]
20 24 ms 21 ms 23 ms ains-l2tp-lns1-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.210]
21 25 ms 48 ms 97 ms nbb-nbrt20201-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.209]
22 205 ms 133 ms 130 ms ains-l2tp-lns1-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.210]
23 32 ms 29 ms 27 ms nbb-nbrt20201-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.209]
24 25 ms 21 ms 27 ms ains-l2tp-lns1-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.210]
25 27 ms 26 ms 30 ms nbb-nbrt20201-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.209]
26 21 ms 23 ms 22 ms ains-l2tp-lns1-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.210]
27 36 ms 26 ms 26 ms nbb-nbrt20201-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.209]
28 21 ms 38 ms 24 ms ains-l2tp-lns1-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.210]
29 23 ms 21 ms 30 ms nbb-nbrt20201-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.209]
30 41 ms 24 ms 24 ms ains-l2tp-lns1-syd.ains.net.au [202.126.99.210]
Trace complete.

For the slightly less tech savvy amongst us, let me explain that what you're looking at is the path taken across the internet from me at work to my computer at home. This path should jump from point to point until it reaches my home PC. However, if you look at line 13, and then line 15, and then line 17, etc. etc. you'll notice that they're the same. Also, lines 14, 16, 18, etc. are all the same. And then right down at line 30 - does that look like the address I asked it to get to? Ah, no. Why? Because after it goes past 30 hops, it gives up in disgust.

What does this mean? It means my craphouse ISP whom I won't mention by name (*cough*) have pointed two routers at each other and said to Router A:

"If you're trying to get to Justin's PC, go to Router B"

and then turned to Router B and said:

"If you're trying to get to Justin's PC, go to Router A".

Have you ever been in a public toilet cubicle, and read on one wall "Toilet Tennis: Look other side", and then turned and looked at the other wall, only to find the words "Toilet Tennis: Look other side"?? No?? Well, you're missing out. But basically, that's what's going on here.

Sound intelligent? Yes well - this from a provider who when I first signed up had their mail server blacklisted by Bigpond for being a spam relay. I emailed to let them know and they fixed it, but... that's just BAD. At the time, they were on half a dozen other well-known DNSBL servers as well.

Anyway - the moral of the story is less of a moral and more of a cry for help. I NEEEEEED a decent internet provider who will give me unlimited 512kbps ADSL for a flat monthly rate. Dodo had crap customer service, and this new provider is slow, and breaks regularly. And I don't like them. I have a suspicion they use Macs, and that alone would cause me to run screaming away from them at the speed of light. People who use Macs shouldn't run ISPs.

'Nuf said. Hopefully by the time this posts, my connection will be back up. I don't think I'll hold my breath...

Privately, Hollywood admits DRM is not about piracy

For me, it's interesting to be able to bear witness to something that critics of DRM have been predicting, that being the demise of DRM. It's technology that doesn't work logically, is designed to inhibit the use of a product both legitimate and otherwise, and ultimately is more useful at frustrating Joe Consumer who just wants to listen to some music on his MP3 player then it is at stopping Bill the Pirate from uploading CDs to The Pirate Bay. So the "it stops piracy" argument is obviously flawed - why then has DRM continued for so long to be such a big issue? Well, I think the linked article sums it up nicely. It was never about the pirates.

Do you know, I never realised that the very problem that copyright was invented to solve is now the problem that it legally enforces. Copyright was created to move content INTO the public domain, and now it's being used to keep content OUT of the public domain. Something has got to change. How on earth did companies who manage artists get so much power?

The Church of Faith-Based Science

I've been struggling lately with the emergence of science as a substitute for a belief in God, and the promotion of said belief system. While adherents will deny it adamantly, the belief that humans have the capasity and facility to understand the universe from an external perspective I believe requires as much faith as a belief in God, as if you follow the logic of that idea through, it very quickly becomes infinitely recursive, as it would require us to have a capasity to fully understand ourselves and all our understanding, which in turn would require us to have the capasity to understand ourselves and all our understanding, etc. etc. Presently, the issue of this recursion is resolved with a simple "it just is", which people choose to believe. The same result is used to explain away the advent of life, and the understanding of what it means to be concious, as well as my personal favorite, where did the empty space come from? Whenever something is finite, it must be contained by something else yes? So what contains the now-believed-to-be-finite universe? Ah, we don't know - but obviously something does.

The argument against the existance of God is that his existance can't be proved using experiments which produce consistant results. Possible results are all-encompasing, and therefore aren't real experiments, which leads scientists to believe God to be "made up" as his nature isn't testable. However, that doesn't prove God doesn't exist.
In a recent video I watched of a Q&A with Richard Dawkins, someone said to him:
"The problem is that you're applying natural laws to God, when He claims to exist outside of them."
Dawkins' response was: "Well that's awfully convenient, isn't it?"
While Dawkins is suggesting that the inability to apply natural laws to God's existance is ultimately evidence of his non-existance, that is not necissarily the case. It's just a fairly typical humanistic stance to take when faced with questions that don't fit in with our current understanding. It's just as convenient to ridicule an avenue of possibility simply because you find another more appealing (and in Dawkin's case, I'd suggest "comforting", but that's another discussion...).
Here's an example:

The rules of this universe are as follows: There are three school boys - Billy, Timmy and Freddy. Billy's mum and dad work overseas, and so Billy has to talk to them on the phone. Timmy and Freddy have never seen Billy's mum and dad, and so don't believe he has parents. Billy can talk to his mum and dad on the phone, but they screen their calls and will only answer phone calls from his home phone. Timmy and Freddy can't go to Billy's house, because they told their parents that Billy lives on his own, and thus are not allowed. Obviously Timmy and Freddy are school children, and can't travel overseas to verify Billy's parents existance. For the purpose of this experiment, the boys' universe is their town.

Timmy says to Billy: "You don't have parents Billy. I've never seen them."
Billy: "Yes I do. I talk to them every night, and they talk to me. Just only on the phone. But they send me presents and stuff."
Timmy: OK then, ask them to send you a scooter. Then I'll know that they're real.

Billy goes home, asks his parents for a scooter. They send one.

Billy: See, I have a scooter. My parents are real.
Timmy: No, see, that could have been a coincidence. You might have already had a scooter, or maybe you went out and bought one, or maybe another one of our friends sent it to you. Hang on a sec. (turns to Freddy) Freddy! Come here!
Freddy: What?
Timmy: Billy says he has parents, but I don't believe him. I got him to ask them for a scooter, and he got one, but now I need you to verify my findings. Get him to ask for something.
Freddy: OK... Um... Billy - ask your parents for a soccer ball.

Billy goes home, asks his parents for a soccer ball. His parents say no, as sometimes parents do.

Billy: My parents said no.
Timmy: No they didn't. They don't exist. You're just pretending they're real. You didn't get a soccer ball, so they're not real.

Timmy doesn't believe Billy, because Billy's parents exist outside of the confines of Timmy's explainable universe. This is a simplified analogy of why the science vs. religion argument will never be resolved. Science likes problems with mutually exclusive answers. You have to find an experiment that will either come back positive or negative. This doesn't work with God, as he doesn't necissarily choose to respond the way we want him to, and in particular he's not so big on being tested. Imagine if Billy's parents were getting calls from Billy every night asking them to provide evidence of their existance? What's important to Billy's parents here? Meaningful conversation with their son, or the belief of his friends? I'm going with option one. God isn't really into satisfying sceptics, and while sceptics will say that's evidence of his non-existance, logically that doesn't work. If I choose not to answer a question for you, that doesn't mean I don't have an answer.

I'm going to take this one step further - I don't think it's the place of science to be suggesting that it can answer these kind of questions. Science might be able to tell me that sometimes my wife acts in a way I find irrational because of her hormones, it can't tell me the right thing to say to make her feel better every time. It's just not a "science" question. In the same way, science can make observations about the laws the govern the universe, but it can't answer the question of why they did, do, and will behave that way. It's just the way it is, and that's as far as it can go.

This is why I think it's important to recognise the growing number of faith-based science adherents who believe that ultimately, science holds all the answers. That our current scientific understanding shows the existance of God to be false. And most scarily of all, that steps should be taken to stop people being allowed to think, speak and act based on a belief in God, as they're "obviously deluded/irrational/unintelligent". The general consensus from the reading I've been doing seems to be that these faith-based science adherents (who would cry out in disgust at being called that, by the way) see people's right to hold a religious belief as a right to believe in something imaginary if that's what you want, but ultimately it IS imaginary, and the law, education, etc. should treat it as such. Well, I'm not up for that. I believe that God is real. Not just in my head, but that he's real in your world, even if you don't believe it. And believe me, I'm starting to get fired up about this. A short read of the forums on www.richarddawkins.com will show there's plenty of support for this idea, and as a Christian, I can see this as a possible threat to my freedom to continue to be a Christian in the way I can today.

Having just watched some short video on the above mentioned site, I'd like to prove the existance of what I describe as faith-based science adherants with the following quote from Richard Dawkins himself:

It is, of course, a very difficult question to ask how things began at the very beginning of the universe. It's very difficult to even know what the word 'beginning' even means with respect to the universe, that any scientist, any biologist, any reasonable person would accept. However, when you ask what is the
alternative - if the alternative that's being offered to what physists now talk about; a big bang, a spontaneous singularity which gave rise to the origin of the universe - if the alternative to that is a divine intelligence; a creator that would have to have been complicated, statistically improbable, the very kind of thing which scientific theory such as Darwin's exists to explain, then immediately we see that however difficult and apparently inadequate the theory of the physist is, the theory of the theologians; that the first cause was a complicated intelligence, is even more difficult to accept. They're both difficult. But the theory of the cosmic intelligence is even worse.

Well, Dick, that's your opinion. And that's just the thing - it's just opinion. Not science. But because it's a scientist's opinion, that makes it gospel in the church of faith-based science. Believing in the unprovable option you find most easy to rationalise is as much faith as believing in the one that you persieve offers the least rationalisation, but is the most universally applicable solution (which is why it's seen as being "convenient"). You want to believe that something sprang from nothing, even though it flies in the face of the rest of accepted scientific theory? Go ahead. I guess we'll all either see for ourselves or not exist in the end.

ICQ makes me mad

I can't remember how old I was when I first starting using the internet regularly, but it would have been during my early teens. We had a 33.6kbps modem, and an internet package where we recieved a certain amount of hours per month, and after that we started paying rather hefty by the hour charges. It was the ungolden age of the internet - before Google, MSN Messenger or MySpace. However, there was ICQ. ICQ was, from my understanding, the first really accessable IM program. Everyone I knew who had the internet also had ICQ. So I signed up for a number, and started meeting people. I've made some great friends over ICQ, and there's been periods where I haven't connected to my account, and then remembered it was there, and would connect and chat with people I hadn't spoken to in ages. Having a ICQ number in the low 2,000,000s was kind of a status symbol for me - I've been in this since the beginning.

Well, all that is now gone. About a week ago, I logged on to my Mac at work on which I run Adium. I have all my IM accounts linked up to it, and it's quite handy. Anyway, it springs a message telling me to enter my ICQ password. This kind of thing is not uncommon, so I figured it must just have lost my password locally and need updating. So I enter it. It prompts again. After a couple of attempts, I decide it must be a server issue and leave it for the day...
Today, it's been a good week since then, and I've been trying every password I've ever used every day since then. Nothing is working. The password retrieval page won't accept any of my previous email addresses either. My password changed itself, and now I can't get back into my ICQ account, which contains a list of all my old friends who occasionally come online. The only solution I'm offered is to register a new ICQ number. But a new number won't carry with it the history the old one did. It's all gone, and there's absolutely nothing I can do about it. *sigh* Not only that, but all my details are still in the old one (you can look it up online) but I can't get access to it anymore. It's not very fun.

Gah. Don't you hate it when stuff like this happens?

Not Your Place

NOTE: This post is ultimately about circumsision, so if discussion of that kind of thing urks you, you might not want to read.

I have some interesting quirks. One of these, is that I cry pretty easy. For a guy, that's not something that's particularly admirable, but I don't care - it's who I am, and I like it. However, there are very specific things that get me emotionally choked up. One of the absolute worst for making me an emotional mess is things to do with family and children. For example, we were watching season 5 of 24, and without giving too much of the story away for those who might like to watch it, there's a bit where some nerve gas gets released into a shopping mall, and a handful of people die. The main character, Jack, knows this is happening and has raced out to try and get people outside, but for some people he's too late. He runs up and sees this little girl, possibly around 10 years old, collapse on the ground and so picks her up and runs outside while telling her to stay with him and all that usual stuff people say when they're trying to stop someone dying. They get her outside and inject her with... something, I dunno, and eventually she comes to. Anyway, as you'd imagine, it's done with that TV drama intensity that you'd expect in a scene like that. The point of the story is that by the end of that scene, I was a blubbering mess. My wife was sitting there having a bit of a giggle, not sure how to respond to my sudden display of emotion, but there was nothing I could do, I just was honestly drawn in to being concerned that the little girl might not make it, and how increadibly sad that would be if it were real.

Anyway, this is not the point of my post.

I stumbled across this site about circumsision the other day, and emailed it to myself so I could read it later. Why? Because the tiny bit that I read at work really hurt me, and that's the point of this post (and of the preceeding diatribe, btw). I had my son circumsised, and I am, and my father is also. I'm pretty sure his dad is too. When my son was born, my wife and I discussed whether or not we would. We researched, we spoke with people. It was important to us that we didn't make a decision on this based on false understanding and information. The understanding we came to was this: opinion on whether circumsision is OK are pretty much divided down the middle. There are plenty of people who will argue that you shouldn't for a variety of reasons, primarily that it's unnecessary in a number of ways. Some argue that it's a positive thing, that it prevents disease and has some other medical and non-medical benefits.

The thing that fires me up about the site above, is that it basically calls me a child abuser. It says that I've mutilated my child. I'm fine with people having opinions, I really am, but this isn't about opinion - it's about someone trying to put legislation in (admittedly not in australia, but that's not really my point) to call illegal actions that I and many, many others made a rational decision on based on weighed up evidence. More then that, the only option that is allowed for a parent not to be an evil child mutilator, is if you were misinformed. So the options are: ignorance, or abuse. I LOVE my son. My priorities in life start like this: God, Wife, Son... and then proceed on from there. I have given up a lot of things for those three, and I have already made the decision that if it was ever needed, I'd give my life up for any of them. I will protect my son from things that will be detrimental to him, but that doesn't mean that I will never let him be hurt. The day he was born, I watched a pediatrition bend his hand over flat against his arm and shove a needle into it. As it turns out, it was completely unnessisary - the needle was antibiotics in case he had an infection, but he didn't. He was just dehydrated because he wasn't feeding well. Should I resent that man for doing what he did? He caused my son unnessisary pain - surely I should feel some anger? The answer of course is no. He was doing what he believed, and we still believe, was best for our son. The same is true of my decision to have him circumsied.

How dare you, writters of that site? Your opinions don't justify the stigma you place on people who actively disagree. Nothing you've said on your site about the physical and mental side-effects of circumsision apply to ANYONE I know who is circumsised. I've never "missed" that part of my body - I don't care that it's not there. Who would? Oh, I know who would - those who would also say you shouldn't discipline your kids, because they need to make their minds up for themselves. That you should expose them to everything you possibly can, because then they'll be able to make decisions based on a full experience. That religious beliefs should be kept out of everywhere except churches with their doors closed, and that you shouldn't teach kids about them because they need to decide for themselves. Loving discipline makes good kids. Direction produces leadership and purpose. Religious beliefs produce and understanding that there are things more important then YOURSELF. And I think that's what this comes down to. The movement of people who says that we need to legislate against circumsision are those who are looking to blame something for their own lack of direction and purpose, and it might as well be this. There are things far more important then your foreskinless penis! There are people dying in your own country for lack of food and housing, and yet you're busy looking at yourself. Grow up, I swear. The same people will happly put half a dosen holes through their kids ear if they feel like. And don't say those just heal - I'm yet to see a person who had pierced ears who isn't left with a scar. A little hard pea-like piece of scar tissue in their earlobe. But you know what? No one will ever rally political support against piercing kids ears because everyone recognises it DOESN'T MATTER. In our sexually-focused society, where your own pleasure in life is all that matters, blaming your missing foreskin for your feeling of emptiness or incompletion might seem like a good idea. But let me put this to you: If it was there, you wouldn't feel any different. How do I know? Well, I don't have a foreskin - but I don't feel empty. Or hurt. Or abused. Or incomplete. I'm just one person - but I'm a 100% bonafide example of someone for whom this has had zero negative impact. My son will be exactly the same, because I'll teach him there's far more important things in life. He's circumsised because it's a reminder that he is a part of something that goes beyond the here and now. He's a part of our family. He's a part of God's family. I don't mind if people don't agree and don't want this for their kids - that's fine, and not a bad thing. Having a choice is a good thing. Just as long as they're willing to accept that there's two sides to the coin and not everybody has to be on your side.

OK, I'm done speaking to people who will never read this anyway. Needless to say, family is a big deal for me. When I get my faux political party policies written, family will feature pretty solidly. Not that I know how to write policy - it'll just be more a collection of what I think should happen politically. However, I've come to the realisation that family as I know it is being erroded and attacked, and I could use that to sound like we should rise up against the oppressors or whatever, but the fact of the matter is it's not going to get any better. People will redefine family based on their own agendas, and legislate to try and tear honest families apart. Eventually I'm sure they'll make it illegal for parents to talk to their kids about God, because that's indoctrinating them, and they have the "right" to make up their own mind. The generation of children who's parents are prevented from raising them - those children I feel sorry for. From where will they draw their direction? Being taught nothing of meaning, they will have to start with nothing, and try and build from there. They'll probably fail for generations to come as they try and regain what their greatgrandparents just took for granted.

Anyway....

Telemarketing = FIREY HATE!!!!!

Here's a roughly acurate transcript of a conversation that just took place on my phone this afternoon:

{ring ring.... ring ring....}

{I pick up. Background noise.}

Me: Hello?

Phone: Hello sir, my name is Raj, I'm calling from (didn't hear company name) and I'm just ringing to congratulate you. Your phone number has been randomly selected to win a free LG #### flip phone. Now before I ship the package to you, I'd just like to ask you a couple of questions. Is your current phone pre-paid or on a contract?

Me: Pre-paid.

Phone: And how much would you spend per month on phone credit?

Me: Oh, not much. About $20 every three months?

Phone: {pause} $20 every three months?

Me: Yep.

Phone: {beep... beep... beep... beep... beep...}

I am quite cranky about this, and if I could remember the name of the company, I'd ring Fair Trading and get them to give them stick. It's so SO wrong. Telemarketing sucks when they're selling you stuff, but when they pretend you've won something free, and then hang up on you when you don't meet their "minimum spend" it's just gone to the realms of completely not right.

This probably will achieve nothing, but if anyone reads this and then gets the same phone call, could you please let me know the company name, and I'll ring the Department of Fair Trading about it? It's about time I took a stand about some of this stuff - it's just not right.

In other news, my next post will be about my political party. I'm adding a new thing to the party agenda - national, enforced, telco independant, do-not-call list that is easy for consumers to opt in to, and where the responsobility rests with the companies doing telemarketing to not call those people, else hefty fines. Like, "go out of business" type fines for repeat offenders.

Politics and Religion

Got a religious belief? Want to maintain the right to base your personal beliefs on your religious beliefs and then speak in a political forum? (sounds sensible, right? Saying the stuff you believe?) Go here: http://www.democrats.org.au/survey2/survey/GodGovt_v2

Can I just say "flippn' Democrats" before I say anything else? They seem to be forever causing trouble for people who like to base their personal convictions on something other then popular culture. If you believe that open relationships are tops, and gays and lesibians deserve more rights then the average joe, and that being of Aboriginal descent means that all the European-descent people in Australia have done you some horrible wrong and so should give you land/money, then your choice is clear: join the Democrats! Forget that all those things have 50 bazillion inheirent problems - they're popular! Don't step on me, man! Live for the now! I guess if you're an Aboriginal lesbian in an open relationship, you've got it MADE!

I added this to my survey response:

In question 7, the question's text puts Intelligent Design as an opponent of "scientific process". However, supporters of Intelligent Design propose it as scientific theory and regardless of whether or not you as the surveyer agree with that, the wording of question 7 biases your sample's response to question 8. That is, you've just stated Intelligent Design opposes science - so why would anyone suggest it should be taught in science classes? However, this is incorrect, as the fundamentals of Intelligent Design are based around it being a scientifically valid theory for the creation of the universe and life. This kind of obvious bias has no place in a survey of this nature, as you are attempting to direct your audience to prove your point. Just because someone bases their personal beliefs on their religious beliefs doesn't make them less valid then your personal belief that religious beliefs don't belong in politics. You are trying to direct politics based on YOUR personal beliefs - why are mine any less valid if I follow a religion? I'm rather put-out at the obvious anti-religious leading apparent in what presents itself as a non-biased survey, and unless I hear of a change in your policies, you can be sure I'll be exercising my belief that the democrats don't deserve any political power at the next election.

See, that question 7 really irked me. I'm not a big advocate of Intelligent Design, personally. My personal belief is that public schools shouldn't teach stuff about the origins of the universe or of humanity - including evolution. With so many different people and different beliefs and no sure way of anyone ever proving anything, you're always going to offend someone so why is it necissary? In order to study a pig's eye, you don't need to know anything about evolution. It might be interesting to contemplate from a scientific perspective (ie: natural selection producing particular biological features in different species) but for a high-school level education, it's completely unnecissary.
The survey is trying to lead the public who respond towards answering in the manner that the surveyors, being the Democrats, desire in order to prove their point. The questions are worded to appeal to popular misconceptions - for example, the question about "church and state" is worded to bring to mind people's TV-knowlege of American law (most Australian's would know about the U.S.'s 1st and 3rd ammendment to their constitution: their right to "free speech" and their right to "bear arms", even though it has nothing to do with Australia or Australia's law/constitution). The idea of "church and state" coexisting is always shown to be negative in American media due to a legal sepration under American law, and so by wording the question to include that phrase, people automatically respond negitively. Forget the fact that the phrase "church and state" comes from a time where churches had significant authority amongst the general population, hence the need for the seperation. In Australia, no one cares what the church thinks unless they've made some mistake. Why the need for the seperation? To give those who follow the church of Popular Culture the freedom to rule as they see fit.
It sucks, and I don't like it. I think it's about time I did something about it...

...now to work out what...