Blogtastic goodness about everything and anything.

I saw this in my feed earlier, and – as you probably know if you’re reading this – facebook groups are a pet peeve of mine.

An amusing comment, don’t you think? No, me neither.

I googled up the name of the website, FBLike.net

<

and the “Privacy Page” caught my eye. Looks like I was right, as well…

How likely is that to be legit? I mean, seriously. Three hundred and sixty six thousand pages with the same text?

By clicking like, you’re spreading that link around – EVEN if you don’t click it. If you do click it, there’s also “clickjacking” attacks.. I’d almost put money on that holding malware or some other malicious payload…

When will people learn?

I start this with a simple message:

With a few notable exceptions, Do not click on, or click like, on any facebook “Like” link.

Better still, don’t at all. Although, if you want to like your favourite celebrity or company, it’s perfectly reasonable, and I do do myself. Going on their official website and finding links to their official pages is probably the best way to go about this.

But particularly none of the “World’s most hilarious PICTURE” and “I LOL’d at this picture” stuff. Why? Well, because at best, you’re going to get landed with having to like the thing and getting a load of adverts thrown at your face. At worse, you’re going to get hit with an exploit, or a malware download page.

Remember that not all “Like” links go to internal facebook pages.

That’s right, kiddies. They use the same format for internal and external links. They look exactly the same on the news feed. Some facebook pages = bad, some outside links = even worse.

However funny the picture is, it’s not worth the hassle. Honestly.

It’s not worth it, it’s probably not safe, and you’re probably not going to get anything out of it.

As, I’m sure you know unless you’ve been living under a rock for the last few weeks, there was a debate between Gordon Brown ( Lab), David Cameron (Con) and Nick Clegg (LibDem). A transcript of the debate can be found here, and the video here: the video only being available for people in the UK.

Now, I apologise in advance for this blog’s length. I’m going to write this in several parts, perhaps 4 or 5, depending on my mood.

General Comments

I believe that Clegg came off best. Not nessacerily because he was the best debater, or had the most substantial points, but rather that his objective for the debate was “To get known” – and he did that, quite successfully. As it happens, the lib dem manifesto is quite well fleshed out: not amazing, but certainly approaching “good”.

The debate was, as I expected, full of various rhetorical devices. A few word counts for you: the word “fair” was used 26 times throughout the duration of the debate, the word “change” 24 times and a specific figure to back a point was used around 3 times. Noone made any amazingly substantial points, but I must admit that Clegg (LibDem) was the best on this point; arguments with actual substance were made, albeit rarely. Clegg was absolutely not totally free of this burden however – but was rather not the worst evil. I quote: “Those are the changes I believe in.” Oh really, Mr Clegg? How original of you.

Again, as I expected [call me cynical: I am], there was a large amount of ad hominems thrown between Brown and Cameron.  It was going to happen. Brown, surprisingly, was the most amusing of the three debaters. I found his comments on the posters particularly amusing. However, style is no substitute for substance, I am afraid.

Opening Statements

Clegg had the first opening statement and, as expected, he started by saying that this is a three party system, and the conservatives and labour aren’t the only choice. I’m just going to go on a tangent. You are a giant hypocrite, Mr Clegg. You, Sir, have done exactly the same damn thing on your posters and leaflets. I’m not taking a manipulation of the ridiculous first past the post system from anyone, particularly not you, Mr. “I’m different, honest”.

I’m done now.

Brown next, he spoke about how securing the economic recovery is important, and a vote for labour will be “The right decision now” to avoid a double dip recession. He manages to shoehorn in the word “fair” in a totally unnecessary place. Surprisingly not bad, and is a nice outline of what he attempts to do later on. Does he actually do it? Guess.

Cameron lastly. He talks about how confidence in politics by the public has dropped greatly, and apologises for every politician letting the public down. Woah, is he actually being modest and accepting he’s done wrong?

Well, no. Later on, he wishes to point out that all of the conservatives gave back their over-claimed expenses before the official review, and how much work he put into resolving the situation. See a bit of a shift in his opinion on the matter there?

Question 1 of 8: “What Key Elements for a fair, workable immigration policy need to be put in place to make it work effectively?”

Immigration: A pretty hot [Read: Over reported] topic recently. Brown talks about the implemented points system (Which, actually, I don’t think is a bad idea.) Cameron starts with “…immigration is simply too high at the moment” – about as subtle as a rusty knife to the stomach- and talks about a hard cap on immigration per year. Clegg, on the other hand, has a region-based system which I, again, don’t find too bad an idea.

Rebuttals now: Brown attacks the cap idea by saying that it’s just an arbitrary figure and talks about his [beloved] ID cards. I am finding myself agreeing with him. Needs change, and we need to be flexible.

Cameron starts with an anecdote. He spoke to a 40 year old black-man who came here when he was 6. He has served in the navy for 30 years, and is ashamed of the loose immigration laws recently.

Well, that’s good of him to take into account the views o- Wait. Wait a minute.

Did he just say a 40 year old has been in the navy for 30 years? That’s certainly interesting, I didn’t know ten year olds were allowed in the navy in 1980. Funny that.

After Cameron’s blatently made-up story, Clegg pops in [No-one has the guts to point out the Cameron lied, though. Or they didn't realise] and defends his regional approach using the same argument as Brown did: that any cap is an arbitrary cap. Flexibility seems to be the name of the game, and allowing immigrants “To regions in which they can be supported” – a good idea, doesn’t say much about what consitutes supporting though.

Brown then confronts Cameron about the drop in immigration, which I found funny. As far as I can tell, he’s right. It has dropped. Cameron’s figures about the immigration rise since 1997 (*cough*) are also correct. They fail to take into account any reason why the increase happened, and the actual effect. I’d like to hear a debate on “So why is 100,000 people a year coming here so bad, anyway?”

Clegg then totally shows Cameron up with his comment, “So how would you enforce a regional system?” – a question he was obviously expecting to hit hard, which was answered quite simply by Clegg: the work permit just needs a simple region on it, and anyone who employs them outside of that is breaking the law.

…To be continued.

In a change from your regular scheduling (Read: Nothing, and I’m actually writing something for once), today we’re going to have a special game of political spot the difference. I’ll be taken pages from political parties’ policies page, and well.. spotting the differences. Before we start, I just want to say that I used a random number generator to pick which ones I would write about, and then put them in the order I thought would be best. So I haven’t been deliberately picking those which look bad. Kthx.

Before reading my commentary, have a read yourself and try to… spot the difference!

Round One: Crime (Con) V/S Crime, Justice and Immigration (Lab)

Con v/s Lab

As the main focus of this was on crime, I won’t be covering the immigration part of labour’s post, which means you should be ignoring the last paragraph.

The Differences

Well, labour’s is longer, that’s for sure. Labour’s also has a lot of “We have done X” and “X is down Y% since 1997″ (Emphasis on 1997, a lot. One would think they have a rival who was around in 1997…). Despite it being longer, it doesn’t have much about what they’re actually going to do, outside of a few sweeping statements (See the third and fourth paragraphs) – the exception being a few figures dotted around, and actual initiatives that they’ll do – albeit minor ones that are the focus of a lot of media attention. So, some minor kudos, which is immediately lost by hitting small, well-publicised issues and not actual issues.

The conservative’s page is two paragraphs long, and is full of “Labour has done this wrong”. Seriously. The opening sentence is “Violent crime is up under labour.” – they really must have nothing substantial to have that little to say.

Both of them are very focused on the other side’s failures, but labour masks it well.

Round Two: Environment(Lab) v/s Environment(Con)

Lab v/s Con
This should be an interesting one. Another very, very publicised issue. Let’s see.

The differences

Labour’s isn’t bad. It’s not the most substantial thing ever, but neither is it terrible. There are, infact, a few facts and figures in there. For example: We are committed to spending £3.9 billion in the next Rural Development Programme in England and We are spending £1.5 billion on climate assistance to developing countries between 2010 and 2012 - some actual substance! There is a lot of “We’ve done X…” – but all in all, it’s not bad. I mean, it’s a lot of words for what they’re saying, but there is some actual policy if you dig a bit.

The Conservative’s isn’t quite as terrible as their crime article, but it’s pretty bad. They don’t say much. The first sentence is A Conservative Government will make Britain greener by tackling climate change and enhancing our environment – which would be acceptable if they had any substance to back it up, but as it stands is just unsubstantiated. A lot of their main phrases and ideas are bolded to make it seem like they have backed them up in some way, the thing to remember though is that they mostly certainly haven’t: there’s a lot of What and not a lot of How.

Both employ a lot of “buzz words” (which, yes, I know is a “buzz word” in itself, but I can’t find a better way of doing it. Something that looks good and sounds impressive but is very vague).

And finally…

Round 3: Women (Con) V/S Women (Lab)

Con v/s Lab

For some reason, there’s a section on women. Why? I don’t know. Why isn’t there just an “Equality” section? Regardless, the show must go on.

The differences

Yet again, the conservatives’ article uses bolding to emphasise very badly substantiated points. There’s a lot of what and not a lot of how, again. It’s minorly better than the previous two, in virtue of actually having some, albeit bad, reasoning and explanation.

The Labour’s article is a huge wall of text.  I mean, seriously. It’s 900 words, and doesn’t say much. At least, the sense-density is low, it does say a few things. For example: We will expand free nursery provision to three and four year olds making 15 hours a week available from this September and we are rolling out free childcare to two year olds so that more than 60,000 will benefit. - “Did they ACTUALLY just say something specific?” I hear you cry.

One final bit of spot the difference:

We believe that the right to choose a lifestyle and a way of life is as important for women in the 21st century as it has ever been…

We want to give women real choice over their own lives – something that remains elusive for too many women in 21st Century Britain.

Spotted it yet?

Me neither.

To Conclude

It seems that the conservatives and the labour party use the same rhetorical devices. They are both focused on eachother’s faults. Labour use a lot of “We have done [Good thing X]” – not that that’s specifically bad, but they seem to neglect the future which is, afterall, what we’re voting for. Right?

The difference can be found in how they employ their rhetoric. The conservatives employ it like a rusty knife to your stomach, particually with their new series of posters which directly attack Gordon Brown. It’s more unsubtle than I ever thought possible. Labour, on the other hand, have veiled theirs and are more subtle about it.

Of course, when it comes down to it, there is very little difference. We’re talking about different methods of using rhetoric to get people’s votes while being as vague as possible to keep the public as badly informed as possible.

I’ve rambled for just under 1,000 words now, so join us next time on Political Spot the Difference!

Well, apologetics time, but… but… Whatever.

I’ve been watching (Well, listening. The video isn’t very interesting…) D’Souza/Loftus on the premise: “Does the Christian God exist?” – It’s 130 minutes long, so a bit of a time input, but interesting.

The Participants

Dinesh D’Souza, Author of What’s so great about Christianity?, is a Roman Catholic Researcher at the University of Standford, who (obviously) is for the proposition.

John Loftus, Author of Why I became an Atheist, who runs the blog Debunking Christianity.

The debate

Loftus opened, with a Society-based claim: “If I were born in a Muslim country et cetera…” – Followed by a nice little accusation of “Brainwashing” – which was quite amusing. He then goes on to cite differences between religions as a basis that all are wrong. He goes on to use a poorly worded and argued social construction argument (Side point: Why can NO-ONE argue Social Construction properly? Seriously?). Furthermore, ECREE – No. Just No.

D’Souza‘s (Side Note: His accent is awesome!) opening calls Loftus out on his, and I quote, “Digressive whining”. I literally laughed. He also took a pop at the Society-based argument (By calling out his Genetic Fallacy). He called out ECREE! Good for him. I don’t like the way he has (and seems to have throughout) an “evidence is unobtainable” point of view. It might just be my interpretation of what he says (He might mean, for example, that the Evidence Loftus is requesting is unreasonable or that total proof is impossible). He makes a good Cosmological Argument though: I do prefer William Lane Craig‘s presentation though. Still. He invokes a fine tuning argument, which I’m not fond of.

I really like his attitude a bit further on: “…I’m not even going to refer to the bible, because that only works when discussing with fellow Christians, I am going to rely on secular reason alone” – A good way to start. Unfortunately, he follows it up with a pretty bad argument about a “higher level of existance (perfection)” – not bad assuming the initial point, but.. question begging galore. It was not convincing at all.

On a better note, He debunks Loftus’ ECREE using the example of Socrates and his existence. (Namely, there’s less evidence of Socrates than Jesus, et cetera – a reasonable rebuttal of a terrible argument).

Loftus’ rebuttal talks about inaccuracies in passing down historical accounts (Ignoring Oral Tradition back in the day, which is kind of weak), and also makes a swing at 100% God/100% Man thing… …and a miss. Nice strawman. He then denies the singularity at the start of the universe, quoting some backrate philosopher (Guys, infinite regress). Appeals to Ridicule on the trinity (Eww). He also says that Science contradicts religion, which is false false false false false. He also keeps, irritatingly, saying stuff about evidence while ignoring arguments. Seriously. What the…?

D’Souzas’ rebuttal starts with the phrase: “I kind of feel like I’m at a rodeo. There’s a point here, and a point there. But a lot of bull in between.” – I literally laughed outloud. He first targets the brainwashing argument by a form of Argumentum ad Populum… although, I think it’s accurate in this case (Not that the argument was anything but rhetoric in the first place) and also applies a nice little analogy, taking another shot at ECREE. He then calls out Loftus on his statement that scientists all agree that there is no singularity – One of the strongest rebuttals made.

The cross-examining is not particually interesting. And… the Q&A is painful.

I’d write more, and may edit in at a later time.

My Conclusion

Loftus did terribly. Seriously terribly. D’Souza isn’t the best theist speaker I’ve seen, but is still quite good. The debate was definetly conclusive in favour of D’Souza. He had some pretty solid arguments, but some had some flaws that’d need to be addressed. Why do we not have any good debaters/intellectuals on the side of non-theism who are active? It’s frustrating.

So.. Have a listen if you like. It’s 2 hours long.. so it’s a pretty big time investment, but worth it in my opinion. Some very good points are made.

As a Google fanboy follower, I found this very interesting.

Google was hit by a series of targetted attacks[1] using PDF-exploits[2] in China, targetting the Google accounts of Chinese human rights activists. The intrusion was apparently “Very Sophisticated” but still only managed to infiltrate a small part of the system. Google recommend that you use strong passwords, use anti-virus/firewall blah blah blah: the usual stuff.
They are “Review[ing] the feasibility of our [Google's] business operations in China” – which may mean withdrawing their Google.cn China-based operations, which was met with controversy over it’s self-censoring when it was released [3]. They did, however, insist that their operations were in the interest of maximised access to information, as pulling out or being forced out may limit it further. Google originally said[4] that they decided to:

(1) Launch Google.cn.
We have recently launched Google.cn, a version of Google’s search engine that we will filter in response to Chinese laws and regulations on illegal content. This website will supplement, and not replace, the existing, unfiltered Chinese-language interface on Google.com. That website will remain open and unfiltered for Chinese-speaking users worldwide.

(3) Limit Services
Google.cn today includes basic Google search services, together with a local business information and map service. Other products – such as Gmail and Blogger, our blog service – that involve personal and confidential information will be introduced only when we are comfortable that we can provide them in a way that protects the privacy and security of users’ information.

It will be interesting to see what the next move is, from both the Chinese government and from Google.  Juggling their ethical (“Don’t be evil!”) and business motivations and needs won’t be easy, and they may end up withdrawing completely, leaving their 30% market share to the leading Chinese search Engine, Baidu (which has a 60% market share).  The chinese local laws can’t be easy to deal with…

That’s it for today, tune in later, folks!

• [1] Google Blog
• [2] F-Secure Blog, Post 1854
• [3] BBC News, Google Launches Chinese service
• [4] Google Blog, 2

I’ve just finished watching series 3 through, because I discovered they’ve been out for ages and I just missed them. Typical.

But, anyway. The point! Yes!

I recommend you go and watch the guild. It’s a web-series about a group (A Guild) of MMORPG gamers, the “Knights of Good”. The Guild start getting together in person, and Hilarity Ensues. It’s a great series, and well worth a watch. (hehe, alliteration)

Linkies:

Season 1, Episode 1 (Youtube)

Season 2, Episode 1 (Youtube)

Season 3, Episode 1 (Official TheGuild site)

Well worth a watch for any gaming fans. If you’re not a gamer, you’ll still appreciate the humour, just not as much of it… as… y’know. It’s written by gamers, for gamers.

Hope you have a lot of spare time at the moment There’s 34 episodes, and they’re all… 5-8 minutes long. Still, well worth a watch.

Enjoy,

Chrs

EDIT: I fail at links. Nice work, Chris.

EDIT2: I STILL fail at links. Note to self, http://[link] or it won’t work >.>