Websense at work.

Websense at work. Our wonderful new filter at work is now fully installed. And let me tell you it is a view of a future that is scary. The Websense filter now used by the public school which employs me is a tool of absolute control that in the name of security and conformity serves only to restrict independent thinking and research. I felt it was overly protective when even Scienceblogs was considered a blocked website. Some brief research pulled up this article in the HeraldTribune.

"Nathan Robinson, 16, was pulling together the horoscopes for the student newspaper when he ran into an eye-opening problem: The school's Web filter blocked him from getting any information on astrology because it fell under the state's filter for cults and nonmainstream religions."

That's right. There is a filter called cults and nonmainstream religions. I guess the "mainstream" religions have so much more evidence for the validity of their claims. Bunk is bunk- regardless of popularity. How is this not discriminatory?

"We have access to sites on Christianity, Judaism and Islam, but not a lot of the smaller religions, or the various cults and things," said Robinson, who is a member of the Pine View Progressive Club. "We find that the filter picks on some of these nontraditional religions are arbitrary."
...
"Our goal is really simple," Robinson said. "We just want to see nontraditional religions removed as a category."

This is ridiculous. No one should be afraid of information. Children being exposed to different or non-traditional information should be viewed as an opportunity to learn, teach, and think critically. It should open up dialog between parents and children-teachers and students. It should not be something feared. I suppose it could possibly undo some carefully constructed brainwashing.

I read on Wikipedia that this software is also used by countries like Iran and China for their censorship protocols. *Skeptic's Qualification- Wikipedia does not necessarily indicate reliable.

I tried to do more research, but sites like the OpenNet Initiative which tracks and researches censorship on the internet were blocked. Websense Filter Category- Advocacy Groups.

Visions

If you have not watched this, you should go right now.

Without Sagan, there would be no Southern Fried Skeptic. I found the end particularly moving.

Vision

Visiting my daughter.

Visiting my daughter.

Silenced by the Lambs

Some may know that my original blog was on a service called Mindsay. I still have my old blog there, which sometimes shadows this one but is being converted into a more personalized and experimental blog rather than informative.

But I still enjoy cruising the other blogs at Mindsay, mingling and seeing what's on the minds of the people there. I hit upon this gem of a post last night.

From a strictly mathematical viewpoint:

What Equals 100%? What does it mean to give MORE than 100%? Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been in situations where someone wants you to give over 100%. How about achieving 101%? What equals 100% in life?

Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these

Questions to ponder upon:

If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z

Is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.

Then:

H-A-R-D-W-O-R- K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%

and

K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%

But,

A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%

AND, look how far the love of God will take you

L- O- V- E-O-F-G-O-D

12+15+22+5+15+6+7+15+4 = 101%

Therefore, one can conclude with mathematical certainty that:

While Hard work and Knowledge will get you close, and Attitude will get you there, ... It's the Love of God that will put you over the top!

I posted a reply that basically said another way of looking at this would be to consider that if 100% is the totality of experience, then a result of 101% when calculating "god's love" would be inconsistent with the set of possible results and should be discarded as inaccurate. I then went on to say that perhaps deities are more like the mathematical oddity i - the imaginary number. Something that does not really exist but is created and used as an end-around for the limitations of our ability to solve certain problems.

I thought it was polite argument with a clever twist on the idea the author presented. I did not think it was antagonistic or rude or even angry. At worst, it may be called provocative, but provocative ideas, when presented openly and with a civil tone, are a tool for progress and improvement of thought in my opinion. But apparently it was in some way inappropriate. The author filters all replies to posts and my voice seemed to be lacking the standards required to share space at this blog.

Isn't this just the whole problem of ideological blindness infecting our nation in a microcosm? If you go to the blog and read the replies, they are all positive, glowing, and supportive. It seems those trying so desperately to protect a fragile ideology, ravaged by progress, made hollow by loss of evidential support, and starving with roots that never quite found purchase in reality, feel that they must avoid any ideas that conflict with their world-view. Note that it is not enough to prepare and develop the principles of their ideology so as to be strong in the struggle for cultural supremacy. It is too risky to compete on a level field in the marketplace of ideas by presenting a credible basis and reasonable foundation for their ideology's general merit. No, the competition must simply be silenced. Drown them out, deny them a voice whenever possible, and make sure to attach negative connotations (like declaring dissent unpatriotic) to any voice that accidentally slips through. I just get frustrated at the widespread epidemic of Fundamental Reinforcement Syndrome evidenced in Fox News and overenthusiastic Merry Christmas campaigns and Nasa Climate scientists' reports of political interference. Someone should tell them that censorship in the market of ideas, no matter how right or righteous you may think your ideas are- or your certainty that the opposition is wrong, pierces the heart of freedom and strike at the core of the idea that is America.

SFS

The Efficacy of Profanity

Well, I'm finally back.

I wandered the wilderness and now, with guarded optimism, I appear to have resolved all issues conspiring to silence me. Conspiracy theorists, don't get your hopes up. I am just using a little literary license. The final obstacle that was preventing me from blogging was primarily problems with my self-built computer. These problems threatened to rip apart the fabric of rational reality and shook my world view to its core. But creativity often thrives in the fields of chaos, and so I have been inspired to propose a research project for any interested in participation or sponsorship. If the reader will bear with me, I will try to briefly explain.

For some unknown reason, my computer suddenly stopped sending a signal to my monitor. After checking several possibilities, I resigned to buy a new video card since that was the oldest component in my PC and therefore, I thought, the most likely culprit. The replacement card did not resolve the issue. Thus began a series of component replacement and testing exercises that reached a critical point which, upon passing, created a (not necessarily reasonable) state where the financial commitment to solving what appeared to be a simple problem was such that mentally I could not justify withholding whatever funding it took to solve the problem. (-I think there is an Iraq commentary somewhere in there-). Eventually I had replaced the motherboard, CPU, RAM, video card, and tried a new monitor. Anyone who is computer savvy will understand that in essence, I had a completely brand new machine. When I powered it up, just like before, lights turned on, fans whirled, speakers beeped, and NO SIGNAL WENT TO MY MONITOR. This had no rational explanation. None of the basic components related to sending such a signal were even the same. The power supply was working fine. Dejected, confused, and feeling a rising panic in the face of technical helplessness, I lost all reserve and began reciting a string of profanity and threats of computer destruction that I believe could be classified as a monologue in vulgarity of Shakespearean proportions. The following day I pressed the power button with the intent of violently shaking the damn thing until it either worked or fell apart. Imagine my surprise when my BIOS flashed up on the monitor with a "hi...been waiting for you"attitude. Once again, there was no logical reason for this result. I could not identify any variables affecting the outcome. I knew I had not prayed. But then I realized that I had used a great deal of profanity.

So I hit upon the idea of "the Fonz effect", a reference to the Happy Days character who coerced an uncooperative jukebox to play by striking it. If the Templeton Foundation can waste millions studying the efficacy of prayer, surely somebody would support a research project studying the efficacy of profanity, especially in regards to its application to technical or mechanical devices. The use of profanity is widespread in American culture. There is a great deal of anecdotal evidence suggestive of profanity's affect. Beyond my personal tale recounted above, I believe it is likely that many others have tales of personal experience where a string of profanities directed toward some inanimate technological or mechanical device (e.g. vehicle, lawnmower, cd-player, a PC) was followed by a seemingly miraculous correction of the malfunction.

If such stories occur with the frequency I imagine, then surely we must begin to suspect there is at least as much data warranting a serious scientific study into the efficacy of profanity as there is to conduct scientific investigations of prayer. And one advantage profanity has over prayer is that you don't have to believe it will work. There is no faith component necessary. I certainly did not believe that my litany of PC abuse would produce such outstanding results. One less variable to consider when conducting our research.

So it's time to pony up my friends. This will require support in the form of both financing and expertise. Please provide me with as much anecdotal evidence as possible of your personal experiences with the efficacy of profanity. E-mail it to me, post it on the comments of this entry, post it on your own blog and send me a link which I would be happy to post here. Also, anyone with expertise (and most importantly- credentials) who would volunteer to help design or perhaps conduct such a study, please let me know. If you want to be financial sponsor, then we will communicate privately. This has the potential to be at least as important and have as strong an impact as recent research into correlations between global temperatures and pirate populations.

Spread the word. With your help, a much-overdue investigation into the efficacy of profanity can be a reality and help us to find a little more truth in our understanding of the world.

Thank You,

The SFS