conz

Your response is one-sided and not historically accurate. Yes, there were Ukrainian Nazis, just like there were (and still are) American Nazis, British Nazis - in fact Nazis in most-all nations of Europe. That some Ukrainians fought against the Russians in the Second World War was because the Russians (who controlled the USSR) had caused the death (by starvation or murder) of approximately 5 million Ukrainians.[0] To many Ukrainians, the Russians were the enemy as much as the Nazis eventually become the enemy.

"With the outbreak of war between Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union in 1941, many nationalists in Ukraine thought that they would have an opportunity to create an independent country once again. An entire Ukrainian volunteer division of the SS had been created. Many of the fighters who had originally looked to the Nazis as liberators, quickly became disillusioned and formed the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) (Ukrainian: Українська Повстанська Армія), which waged military campaign against Germans and later Soviet forces as well against Polish civilians."[1]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor https://spectator.org/remembering-stalins-atrocities-against...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_nationalism

Regarding this paper you cite:

"Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19"[0]

It's worth noting the following analysis:

"Immunologists and virologists complained on social media around 6 months ago about a recently-created sham scientific journal called "International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Practice, and Research" (IJVTPR) which was supposedly created by anti-vaxxers and intended to release anti-vax research papers. Since then I have noticed one specific IJVTPR paper, "Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19" frequently cited in anti-vax forums all over the internet."

"No reputable experts authored the paper: No professional immunologist, virologist, or vaccine specialist took part in the authoring of this paper. It turns out the paper's primary authors are:

Stephanie Seneff, a senior Computer Science and AI (no professional expertise in medicine, vaccines, immunology, or virology) researcher at MIT who, according to her Wikipedia entry, "...began publishing controversial papers in low-impact, open access journals on biology and medical topics; the articles have received 'heated objections from experts in almost every field she's delved into'..." Greg Nigh, a naturopathic physician (not an MD, DO or PhD, degree from "National College of Natural Medicine"), licensed acupuncturist and founder of Immersion Health in Portland, Oregon."[1]

[0] https://ijvtpr.com/index.php/IJVTPR/article/view/23/51 [1] https://www.metabunk.org/threads/need-help-further-debunking...

Try using elinks or similar console-based browser. All issues of obfuscating font just fall away.

Recommend you look at something like the Raspberry Pi 400:

https://www.raspberrypi.com/products/raspberry-pi-400-unit/

These are about USD100 a pop and need a HDMI screen and you're all set.

And then configure it to run a Basic or Python REPL on boot, to give that 1970s home PC feel.

  I still miss Visual Basic + WinForms

If you don't mind running Linux binaries in Windows, then take a look at GAMBAS, a solid, contemporary Object Basic VB equivalent:

http://gambas.sourceforge.net/en/main.html

  Have these rigidly regulated mechanisms been in place for 2500 years? Because if not, that seems like the sort of thing that Feyrabend might have meant by saying science isn't a single tradition.

The programme/process of Science - the overarching belief that the natural world can be understood through rational means - has itself gone through numerous process improvements during those 2500 years; yet it remains the same endeavour and retains the same core impetus.

  "As the philosopher of science Paul Feyrabend wrote and made the convincing case in his book Against Method"

Convincing case? I think not.

Feyrabend is about the worst of the philosophers of science, and that's saying something[0]. He forms part of the tradition of humanities scholars who feel they have something of insight and utility to add to understanding science, but who offer insufficient evidence to match the claims they make.

It's with value-vacuum and nonsense statements like this:

  "Science is an essentially anarchic enterprise: theoretical anarchism is more humanitarian and more likely to encourage progress than its law-and-order alternatives."

and this:

  "Science is neither a single tradition, nor the best tradition there is, except for people who have become accustomed to its presence, its benefits and its disadvantages. In a democracy, it should be separated from the state just as churches are now separated from the state."

that these people trade in. What does this even mean? Where is the actual evidence to support such claims?

Science is far from an 'anarchic enterprise'. It has the most rigidly regulated mechanisms for knowledge procurement and knowledge dissemination available to us.

Further, science is a single tradition (underpinned by the scientific method) and it is the best tradition we have; no other field of human endeavour has progressed as far in 2,500 years as science has. This is in sharp contrast to Feyrabend's own field, philosophy, where such a claim cannot be sustained.

[0] Popper is easily the least-worst of this group.

[EDIT] Grammar clarity.

  Australia hasn't had a recession since the early 90s and you are complaining?

The point that was being attempted was this: Yes, Australia has done well. But it could have done much better if it didn't squander its mineral wealth and hadn't removed an actually-beneficial-to-society mining tax.

Just look at Norway as the example of how much better we could have done.

In turn, we wouldn't be lumbered with egregious mining billionaires like Clive Palmer and Gina Rinehart, who - among other monstrosities - heavily back climate-disruption denial.

  Language changes. It's the 2020s not 1980s.

Language may change, but language changes which cause 'damage' need to be resisted.

There's too much that's positively aligned with the word 'hacker' to let those who without clue ruin the word for everyone else.

Am also from that generation, but got into an IT career from the early 80s.

I understand where you're coming from. I'm increasingly the least-tech focused of my family/social circle, despite being the most heavily involved in the tech industry. In fact, I think my lack of bullishness in tech is due to the fact that I've been in the tech industry for 40 years. I know where the downsides lie.

However, don't let the current reality get you down. One thing that being in this industry has taught me is that nothing is completely fixed and permanent. To wit, the global monopolist who benefited the most from the network-effect lock-in used to be IBM. Then it was Microsoft. Now it's Facebook. In time, this too will change.

What wont change is the need for level-headed 'grey-beards' and those others who have lived sufficiently long in the tech space to have accumulated some level of wisdom, which they can then share with those that follow.

  Tbf, I learned "hacking" as the word for illegal (cyber) activity long before I've seen it used for "hacking stuff together".

How long have you been privy to Internet or programmer culture? 'Hacker' as a positive term has been around a lot longer than 'hacker' as a pejorative one.

Back in the '80s, a hacker utilised technology to interesting ends. A cracker (akin to a safe-cracker) broke into things and did damage.

As but one datum point, Steven Levy's book Hackers came out in 1984:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hackers:_Heroes_of_the_Compute...

EDIT: Typo.

  We don't want to because publishing in open access costs us $2000.

Out of curiosity, what does publishing in closed-access journals cost?

  Intellectuals of the time loved to make fun of and satirize MAD. But the fact is it worked.

Intellectuals were more terrified than merely 'making fun' of Mutually Assured Destruction. Their satirising efforts where aimed at stemming the nuclear arms race and nuclear weapon proliferation.

'It worked' only in the sense that cooler heads prevailed to prevent accidental holocaust[0] and that humanity was incredibly lucky[1]. That this occurred is more than a minor miracle.

[0] https://www.wjperryproject.org/books [1] https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00963402156111...

I have no comment on the rest of the-fine-article, bu this statement is incorrect:

  Our two largest cities (Sydney and Melbourne) right now are in a continued state of lockdown, with the various states pursuing a COVID19 eradication strategy which has caused immense social and financial damage to our society. 

Australia's two most populous states (New South Wales and Victoria, the main jurisdictions presently under lock-down) are not pursuing any COVID19 eradication strategy; that boat sailed months ago when the NSW government failed to lock-down sufficiently when the Delta strain hit, thus infecting many of the other states and New Zealand through that lack of action.

The evident strategy being pursued by these two states is one of protecting the health system by ensuring it isn't overrun by COVID cases, while also giving as many people as possible the chance to vaccinate.

Once 80% of the populace is vaccinated (and I concur with the author of the piece here that that should have been achieved months ago), then most of the lock-down measures will cease.

It also means that anyone who opts not to vaccinate (and kids under 12, and the immuno-compromised who cannot vaccinate) will have to fend for themselves.

throwawayfear,

I share legitimate concerns about the Australian federal government's moves in recent years which show a lurch towards the surveillance state and authoritarianism. The points you raise which are related to regulations surrounding the response to COVID are needless fear-mongering however.

Yes, the rights of the individual with respect to movement and to assembly are important. But, so are the rights of citizens to not be infected and be put at risk of hospitalisation and even death.

So, a (temporary) regulation to limit the spread of COVID by reducing the number of people you can have in your home is acceptable in the same way that drivers are forced to drive at 40km/h around schools and playgrounds.

The great majority of Australia's citizenry understands this trade-off, thus supports the (predominantly) state government efforts during this time of COVID. And this support has been shown to provide health dividends; which, astonishingly, even the anti-lockdown Murdoch press seems to be grudgingly accepting:

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/cov...

Being in the middle of an epidemic changes the norms as far as regulations go, in much the same way that such norms are altered during times of war. Citizens know these changes are unpalatable, but also know the alternatives are worse.

EDIT: typo.

    'even in the "good old days" Usenet was absolutely chock-full of assholes and cranks'

Yes, but that's what kill files were for :-)

EDIT: Formatting.

On the contrary,

(As noted elsewhere in this forum)

There is mounting evidence that John Kerr was a CIA asset:

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/...

    Except, at least in the UK, vaccinators will be in schools and will "evaluate" if the child is informed and competent to make the decision without parent consent. Mixed with financial incentives, for each child vaccinated, looks like a bad stance

Vaccinations in schools are an absolute commonplace in Australia. Again, the proviso here is that no one is forcing the vaccinations on anyone. Incentives? Sure.

It's worth noting that there is mounting evidence that John Kerr, governor-general (and thus the Queen's representative) at the time of the dismissal of the Australian government in 1975, was a CIA asset:

    "'The Palace Letters' show Sir John Kerr sacked Gough Whitlam because the embattled PM had taken on the US Intelligence establishment"

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/...

EDIT: Markup.

I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting that we 'force unnecessary medical treatment' on kids.

What is being made available to parents is the option to vaccinate their children if they deem it necessary.

Also, while kids are less at risk of death or hospitalisation from COVID than adults, the risk is not insignificant:

https://www.cnsnews.com/article/national/susan-jones/cdc-335...

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/child-covid-19-hospital...

Regardless, COVID remains a much greater risk to kids than the vaccines:

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/04/opinion/covid-vaccine-kid...

Therefore, parents need to make up their own minds.

In general, there is no less of an anti-censorship stance among Australians than among those in the US.

What we do have in Australia - with its accompanying advantages and disadvantages - are strong protections against defamation, particularly from the media. And it's that machinery which is at work here.

Nothing is stopping the media continuing to allow comments on social media posts, if they accept the legal risks associated with defamation, or they enact a sufficient level of moderation for content which carries that risk. This is a purely commercial play, not a governmental censorship one.

None of this excuses our federal government, which continues to veer towards the authoritarian end of the spectrum. But that's another topic.

EDIT: fixed typo.

  "Mean old Newscorp didn't force Labor to vote for increased surveillance, to leave negative gearing alone, or to go soft on coal lol."

On the contrary, Newscorp does exactly that. It's called wedge politics, and Newscorp is highly competent at wielding the stick that ensures that anyone who doesn't toe the line with the conservative parties is deemed a threat to the nation.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249062912_The_ideol...

For the record, the Greens are the only major party to oppose this overreach. (Major in the sense that they are the 3rd largest party outside of the ALP and the Liberal parties, and larger than the National party.[*])

From the article:

  Green Senator Lidia Thorpe described the bill as “terribly flawed” and “problematic”, cited comments in the Richardson review that existing powers were adequate, and criticised the lack of time to consider the government’s amendments.

  “Unsurprisingly, the two major parties are in complete lockstep with each other and they are leading us down the road to a surveillance state,” she said.

[*] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Party_of_Australia

Brought a smile.

Amusingly, I was only just looking through the Microbee Software Preservation Project, at a few of my efforts from the early '80s.

https://www.microbee-mspp.org.au/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=MS...

And for anyone else with 'Bee nostalgia, here's a very functional Microbee emulator:

http://nanowasp.org/

You can run Gambas and Gambas apps on Windows:

https://forum.gambas.one/viewtopic.php?t=812

For anyone still interested in 'Visual Basic' style application development, or for RAD development in general, take a look at Gambas: http://gambas.sourceforge.net/en/main.html

Gambas is a mature, current-generation OO BASIC, has a vast array of libraries, a JIT and is completely open source software.