Hear Ye! Since 1998.

Archived Posts for August 2002

Please note: The posts on this page are at least 3 years old. Links may be broken, information may be out of date, and the views expressed in the posts may no longer be held.
29
Aug 02
Thu

Uni Stuff

Yesterday, 4pm, UNSW: I had a meeting with my thesis supervisor.

“I want you to write a 5000 word conference paper.”
“Ok.”
“Yeah. Tomorrow morning.”
“Tomorrow morning?!”
“Uh huh. Say, 9.30am?”
“Uh… o… k…”

So that kept me nice and awake until 6am today.

I’ve just finished doing the revisions we discussed at the 9.30 meeting, so hopefully that’s out of the way for now. I took a trek up to the Law Faculty admin office after the meeting and got their enrolment prospectus. UAC has opened for 2003 enrolments. Lately I’ve began giving serious consideration into doing graduate law, and I seem to be moving in that direction. It’ll add another 3 years to my uni life (or 2.5, if I overload) and 7 years in uni would make me old. Then again anyone with a combined honours degree would need 6 years anyway, so an extra half year couldn’t hurt that much could it? It’s unlikely that I would get the opportunity to do law in my life if I don’t do it when I’m young, but then again 2 years of full-time work is a pretty good start in life too. Hmm, I think I’ll enrol (deadline is end of September) and see how the year pans out. At least that gives me options either way. Anyone able to offer me advice on this?

27
Aug 02
Tue

Asus Mobo

Oh I like this new motherboard, the Asus A7V8X. Socket A, KT400, gigabit lan, serial ata, bluetooth/802.11b, usb 2, firewire. The damn thing even speaks…

Atheism vs Christianity Debate

Last night I attended a debate in Sydney’s Town Hall, presented to a standing room only full house. The debate was between an Atheist (Dr Peter Slezak) and a Christian (Dr William Lane Craig). In a modified debate format – 20 minute introductions, 12 minute first rebuttal, 8 minute second rebuttal and 5 minute conclusion with each side alternating – the two scholars, each with impressive credentials, set out to prove their respective positions in the age old debate of whether God exists. Craig in particular is world-renown for defending the faith, and despite this, Slezak was up to the challenge of engaging Craig, who practically makes a living doing this sort of thing. Neither debater disappointed and it was, without a doubt, a highly stimulating, intellectually exhausting, 2 hours. There was a lot of information in it and I’ve probably remembered and/or interpreted some things wrong, so what is written below may be slightly inaccurate.

Both speakers were unpaid for their time, and given the time pressures of the debate and the requirement to think on your feet, both were highly impressive. There were some inconsistencies in both arguments, but I would put this down to the environment of the debate rather than pure oversight.

When it comes to beliefs and religion, people on either side of the fence are most unlikely to change their beliefs overnight, if at all. To expect an Atheist to be converted post-debate is unrealistic, as is for the Christian to lose faith. The audience was, I suspect, made up of a majority of Christians, a substantial portion of atheists, and more significantly, some curious agnostics. The agnostic “fence sitters” are those who are as yet undecided, based on the evidence presented to them, whether to believe or disbelieve. Because of this unsureness, they are perhaps more likely to be affected by what was presented on the night. However, the direction the debate headed was perhaps different to what many were expecting, but it is a direction I believe was the better choice.

Many Atheists attack Christianity’s validity based on its doctrine and the Bible. Why are there so many contradictions in the Bible? Why are some things clearly stated in the Bible not followed today? What’s the deal with creation versus evolution? Is God narcissistic? Why are there so many denominations of Christianity? And so on. An interesting line of questions, but an avenue the debate did not travel down. The debate was conducted on a much “higher” level (or, in terms familiar to those in the IT industry – a lower level, at the root of things) than most expected. That is, the brunt of the debate focused on the sole question of: Does God exist? The lower “root” level comparison is apt, because if you can chop off the argument at this level, all higher-level arguments cease to be valid. If God does not exist, all contention about the Bible and doctrine cease to exist as well. Furthermore, many doctrinal and Biblical questions revolve around human interpretation. Human interpretation is flawed, because we are human. This sullies things and it is hard to reach any resolution when “human flaw” is used as a point of argument, or some would say, excuse. Arguing about these things if often inconclusive. So, the way to address things is to strike at one of the very lowest levels. As a result, the debate centered more around the ontologically related disciplines of philosophy, logic and metaphysics, rather than history or theology. By extension, science – cosmology in particular – was used extensively as common grounds for making points. As I recall, the Bible was not quoted once by either side.

Craig opened the debate, with the main effort focused on the existence of God. Preliminary comments were made regarding burden of proof and requirements for proof. Should the onus be on the Christian to prove God exists (what evidence is there that God exists?), or should the onus be equal on the Atheist to prove Atheism exists (what evidence is there that God does not exist?)?

Craig made five major points. Evidence for God’s existence can be seen in (1) the origin of the universe, (2) the complexity of conditions and probability of our existence as intelligent life, (3) the presence of objective morality as proof of existence, (4) the evidence of Christ’s miracle, unnatural, resurrection implying divinity and (5) immediately personal experience with God. Interestingly, only one of his major points linked existence of God to an existence of a Christian God (4). The points were also coincidentally ordered in sequence of ferocity of debate, with 1 and 2 being the most actively argued, and the most confusing.

I am still hazy on much of point 1. Craig basically stated that the mere emergence of the universe, as established in science’s Big Bang theory, is grounds for proof of a higher intelligence. The Big Bang theory recognises that the universe came out of nothingness. Before the bang, nothing existed, including the concept of time. Things as they were, were timeless, and there was nothing. Therefore, something formed out of nothing. This flies in the face of logic and everything we understand. Clearly, to have something form out of nothing implies the existence of a higher being – otherwise, how could something that is timed (the universe) have formed out of timelessness? Craig provided an analogous example of you hearing a loud “BANG!”, asking, “What was that? Where did that come from?” and having him reply with, “Oh nothing. Nowhere.” Which is clearly absurd.

After other counterpoints I can’t remember regarding the concept of time and dimensions, Slezak retorted that to use homely examples such as the “Bang from nowhere” example (and the “horse appearing out of thin air to defile the lounge room carpet” example) is impossible, because our conceptual understanding of the world is fundamentally different from the existence of the universe such that we cannot draw comparisons. We cannot use such “homely examples”. Because something does not fall into our realm of understanding, does not necessitate divine presence. Quantum physics, accepted in academia globally, is on the surface preposterous. Even Einstein disputed some of what is accepted today. Nonetheless it goes to show that just because something is incomprehensible, does not preclude the fact that it is possible and “natural”.

But, can we use an example at all? Scientific theory is based upon falsification, so nothing can really be universally definitively proven – this is a tenet held by all in the field of science. So, where do we draw the line, if we can, at using an example? In reply, Craig pulled out a reference to metaphysics. I guarantee you that 90% of the audience did not know what metaphysics is, and with good reason because it is reasonably esoteric. I have a fair understanding of the concept, but I am not entirely sure myself. The prefix “meta” is rather enigmatic and can mean a large number of things, mostly as a replacement preposition meaning things like: between, with, after, behind, over, change, etc. In philosophical terms, it may refer to something as “one level of description up” – a self-referential term, so to speak. For instance, metadata is data used to describe data, and meta-linguistics is language used to describe language. Therefore, metaphysics would seem to refer to the views underpinning the physical world. (In actual fact, metaphysics is understood to have been derived from meta phusika, the title of Aristotle’s treatise on first principles. Meta in this context means “after”, as meta phusika followed his work on physics.) Today, it is used to refer to the science of being and existence. The philosophy of science, so to speak. It is ontology – how we believe the universe to exist – the root of science and knowledge generation. In science and scientific method, there are various epistemologies and theoretical perspectives to adopt, but underlying all this is an ontological stance which dictates a framework by which science can work within. Before we begin anything, we must establish the context of our existence. Confusing, yes?

Let me put it this way. Is nothing in this universe universally generalisable? If so, what is the point of science? Clearly(?) there must be some concessions made to “overlook” this. One rule expounded by metaphysicists (philosophers, really), is deemed to be universal and immutable. I can’t remember the exact wording Craig used, but it was something along the lines of, something cannot come out of nothing (and by extension we can get the well known first law of thermodynamics). If that metaphysical law is then regarded as an unassailable universal truth, then the existence of the universe can be regarded as miraculous, thereby bringing Craig’s assumption back to being feasible. In response, Slezak did not regard metaphysics as science, therefore, to use a non-scientific principle to prove his point in a scientific way was not valid. This point was debated at great length and I got lost several times, so take what i write with a grain of salt. Nonetheless, a lot of people did notice that both speakers seemingly contradicted themselves in their use of illustrative “homely” examples after these opinions were expressed.

There was also something about causality (cause and effect) covered regarding this point, but I don’t remember exactly what. [See comments below]

Furthermore, a recurring theme arose that the absence of proof does not prove of the absence of God. On the other side of the coin, the absence of proof to the atheist implies a high likelihood that God does not exist. Craig’s riposte was to say that the absence of proof is significant only when it is expected. Slezak inquired that, is it not reasonable to expect some form of proof from God of his existence? (Luckily no one pulled out granny’s “God works in mysterious ways” line here.)

(As a sidenote, and a bit more on metaphysics, I will pull out an example from Star Trek. At the beginning of Star Trek 4, Spock is answering questions fired at him by a computer in order to retrain his mind. One of the questions posed was, “What was Kiri-kin-tha’s first law of metaphysics?” Spock replied with, “Nothing unreal, exists.” Kiri-kin-tha is fictitious, but the law is worthy of consideration. It’s common sense, naturally, but common sense does not constitute scientific proof. Slezak did quip, though, that it is only in academic circles things as ludicrous as this are discussed! How that law is interpreted is seemingly independent of our perception of reality – our ontology. Is reality independent of the perceiver? Or is reality determined by the perceiver? Regardless, nothing unreal, exists. Read more.)

In Point 2, Craig postulated that our existence, despite the sheer improbability of it, is cause for attention. Scientists have calculated that the requirements for life to exist at all in the universe are ridiculously infinitesimal. Pretty much as close to impossible as you can get. This is factoring in things such as speed of the universe’s expansion, and scientific constants. How did this unlikeliest of unlikelihoods come about? Craig examines three possibilities: Natural law, chance and design. He discounts the former two, citing that nothing points to nature being anything other than arbitrary – there is no reason for nature to behave in a completely different way (thereby creating a completely separate reality, one of the vast majority of realities that do not support life). By this logic, design seems to be the only logical and most likely alternative.

Slezak quickly pointed out that this point made an underlying, flawed, assumption. Let’s take a simplified example – if we take a bunch of cards, any old hand is just as likely (unlikely) as a royal flush. If we get a royal flush, one would suspect the possibility of a rigged deck of cards. Yet, if we take any old hand, which is just as improbable, we do not suspect foul play. So what is significant about the way the universe currently is? Craig quickly dispensed with this point saying that the difference is in the significance of the hand dealt. Life existing is a lot more significant than life not existing, by the nature of life in addition to the sheer improbability of it. Slezak tried again, this time saying that reality as it currently exists is only remarkable because we are here to ponder it. I don’t fully grasp what point he was trying to make – I’d need to listen to his speech again – but I imagine a comparison can be made with the analogy of falling cats. Statistics show that cats falling from balconies higher than the second storey of buildings tend to survive more than die. The fallacy in this idea, however, lies in the fact that people are more likely to report an unlikely occurrence (the cat surviving) than an expected one (a dead, flat cat). People tend to only note the remarkable.

Point 3 covered objective morality. Objective morality refers to a moral standard that is true regardless and independent of external perception. In other words, an absolute moral standard. Clearly there cannot be objective morality without it being mandated by a completely external entity (God). Craig proposed that the presence of objective morality means God must exist. Therefore, if objective morality exists, then God must exist. He then proceeded into a flaky point about objective morality definitely existing given our “innate instinct”. This point was categorically turned down by Slezak. Gut feeling is no proof. This point was perhaps the most troubling of Craig’s.

It is agreed that objective morality cannot exist without God. Does objective morality exist though? Let us say that there exists extra-terrestrial life elsewhere in our universe that follows a different moral code. Where is objective morality then? Can we rely on our instincts to tell us that there is an objective moral code? A valid point. I’m not sure that Craig addressed the defence of it properly, because I don’t recall one. Slezak did criticise Craig’s opinion on the existence of extra-terrestrial life as to be so small as to be discountable – that Craig was being hypocritical in accepting the unlikelihood of existence, yet discounting the possibility of extra-terrestrial life. Nonetheless, you don’t have to travel across galaxies to determine moral standards. Craig cited that objective morals included things such as rape and child abuse. However, if a culture believes rape is fine (perhaps, in fitting with concepts of social evolution – species adapt to social patterns which ensure greatest chance for survival), who is to say this violates any morals? It’s cultural relativism. This whole point sounded a little dodgy to me.

Point 4 was definitely argued more convincingly by Craig. Both men agreed to assume Christ existed, but disputed the resurrection. In the absence of natural proof for Christ’s resurrection, it is only natural to assume a miracle occurred. Slezak pointed out that it was illogical to jump to this conclusion. Because an explanation in the natural world is not readily apparent, it does not imply a miracle occurred (the reasoning is non sequitur). Why not consider the natural causes first? Here is where Craig demonstrated a distinct advantage in academic knowledge. Slezak, giving a couple offhanded examples of natural possibilities, mentioned the theory that Christ never really died. Craig demolished this remark, attributing it the same deprecated status the Flat Earth theory has, before progressing to say that modern scholarship has conclusively exhausted all natural possibilities. Ergo, in Holmesian fashion, the most unlikely possibility must be possible. One would have to verify the validity of Craig’s claim about modern scholarship agreeing with him, but people are unlikely to question someone with a double doctorate in the area. It would seem that the historicity of Christ’s resurrection is valid.

Point 5 was fairly minor in the debate’s context and was not covered extensively – immediate personal experience with God proving the existence of Him.

The styles of the two speakers as the debate progressed was interesting. Craig’s opening statement was fairly comprehensible, but being the first speaker, he also had the opportunity to control the debate’s direction. Slezak was then forced to elevate the complexity of the debate (provoking the discussion on metaphysics and so on) in order to rebut Craig’s assertions. From what I am told, the flavour of this debate was much more intellectual and convoluted than Craig’s debate at Sydney Uni on Monday with media personality Phillip Adams. Craig, with his ever-alluring American accent is a natural public speaker, and Slezak spoke in the very off-the-cuff manner of a good lecturer – he takes philosophy at UNSW, so I would not be surprised if enrolments in his subject multiply. Both are, as expected, very well read, pulling quotes from external sources at every opportunity (Craig at one stage pointing out a Slezak misquote, complete with page reference, to the delight of the audience).

Who was more convincing? Hard to say, both speakers were razor sharp, albeit both with a few noticeable inconsistencies, self-contradictions and questionable points. Then again, I can also see many people misinterpreting various things and missing some points of the debate. A comment that animals do not have morals (but merely evolve their behaviour), in reference to point 3, was readily accepted by both sides of the debate. However, some have raised an eyebrow at that statement and said, “But how do you know animals don’t have morals?” Which is an attack on a fairly trivial matter (morality requires self-consciousness/self-awareness, of which animals do not have given the philosophical definitions of those terms). It’s things like this, though, that would still nag at some peoples’ minds.

Time constraints limited discussion of many points, leaving many unresolved. The debate would be largely inconclusive for most people – although it might see agnostics become more curious about Christianity, after hearing it, for once, being defended credibly and adeptly. Nonetheless it was all a good opportunity for all to flex the cogitative muscle.

The real answer to it all though, as they say, is still up in the air. As it should be.

Updates and comments

More on causality: Craig mentioned that by the causal principle, the universe, as an effect needed a cause. Yet this cause, craig believed, had to be a ‘personal’ cause. If this cause was timeless and was not personal than its associated effect would’ve equally manifested and be timeless: we know this to not be the case. Therefore this cause must’ve had a character to ‘choose’ when to enact the cause and produce the effect that is the universe we know today. (Dave)

—–

Just one little note though… you said at the end in regards to whether animals have morals that it “…is an attack on a fairly trivial matter (morality requires self-consciousness/self-awareness, of which animals do not have given the philosophical definitions of those terms).” I don’t think this matter is as trivial as you suggest, given that some animals (e.g. dolphins and chimps) seem to have theory of mind, which means they are self-aware. (Lill, a psych hons student)

Valid point… something I’d have to reconsider!

Word Trivia

The Oxford Dictionary Words FAQ answers a few interesting questions like: How many words are in the English language? What common English words end in -gry? In -dous? What comes after once, twice and thrice?

Cheap Ass Kicking

An e-bay auction from last year.

26
Aug 02
Mon
24
Aug 02
Sat

Card Flicking

Sounds pretty cool, but haven’t tried it yet…

18
Aug 02
Sun

Fantasy League

Remember the fantasy league I went into for the World Cup? I got convinced to join the one for the English Premier League, despite me not knowing anything about it. Major timesuck. Here’s our league. My manager’s name is named after the Great American Book Cooker.

About A Boy

Not a typical romantic comedy, but a typical Hugh Grant English romantic comedy. Except that it’s not really about romance either. Pretty witty and charming. Btw, “no man is an island” is part of John Donne’s meditations – the famous “For whom the bell tolls” passage. I bet you a lot of people came out thinking it really was Bon Jovi’s line :)

Signs

Another M. Night Shyamalan movie. I liked it. It’s like Independence Day, but from the perspective of a widower’s family in the American country (and probably the only redneck American family without a gun). There’s a sense of detachment and distance from the action of the world stage, away from the blazing Vulcan cannons of Will Smith’s jet and the amazing virus of Jeff Goldblum. It took me a while to realise that the aliens have come. That they really have come, because we only find this out from the news footage on the tv and radio, and Mel Gibson insists that the family be Amish for half of the movie. Yet despite this detachment, when the aliens land on the doorstep of these country folk, the suspense and action is every bit as gripping as the explosions in ID – you gotta admit ID was fun, albeit ludicrous. It’s a different perspective of aliens invading. Perhaps not the first of its kind, but of its kind there are few. Shyamalan’s trademark seems to be (apart from his fascination with the alien or the supernatural) playing cameos in his films.

Hearing

I’ve always been mildly deaf since childhood, so I went for a hearing test last week to see if the situation had changed at all. A hearing test is not all that dissimilar in principle to an eyesight test. They stick you into a soundproofed room (even isolated from the air conditioning system), and play you tones through headphones. The tones are played at a variety of frequencies at different levels of volume. You hit a button when you hear a tone. It gets quite deceptive, because at quieter levels, you’re not sure what is a tone and what is your imagination. They also play words and you’re meant to repeat what you hear, or at least, what you think you hear. The last stage of the test involves them sticking probes into your ear to measure middle and inner ear things.

In the tone test, they measure tonal ranges from 500Hz to 8000Hz which is roughly the normal human vocal range. Normal hearing, like 20/20 vision, should allow people to hear down to 20 decibels. I have mild permanent deafness in the upper ranges (2kHz-8kHz) where sounds must be above 40dB for me to hear – note that the decibel scale is logarithmical. Which to me is slightly worrying because a 20dB difference means those frequencies must be 100 times “louder”, or at least 100 times more powerful, for me to hear, than the normal person, unless I have misinterpreted something. Luckily, it’s still categorised as minor loss. In practical terms, that means I sometimes miss high frequency/low volume parts of words such as affricatives (“ch”) and fricatives (“th”, “sh”, “ss”), but context and limited lip reading ability (that the doctor told I have apparently subconsciously developed) fill in the gaps most of the time. It also explained for me why I can never seem to hear people when they whisper to me… it’s because I simply can’t.

16
Aug 02
Fri

Flame Warriors

A classification system for all types of net forum inhabitants. Pretty amusing.

14
Aug 02
Wed

Bionic Eye

Wired magazine article on the Bionic Eye. A machine physically wired into a human’s brain, incredible. While I was reading this article I kept asking myself whether this was perhaps a fictional piece of work – a sci-fi author’s vision of the future… but with time, it gradually sank in that this was not fiction, this was reality. It’s pretty surreal. Actually, this month’s issue of Wired has a bunch of interesting articles, have a read.

12
Aug 02
Mon

LOTR

The DVD for Fellowship of the Ring was released recently. However, a four-disc “Platinum” set will be released in November/December this year. I’ll wait for that one… And also, an oldie, but a goodie – the diaries of the fellowship.

  6:22pm (GMT +10.00)  •  Movies  •  Tweet This  •  Add a comment  • 
10
Aug 02
Sat

Ansett Global Rewards

I had around 35k frequent flier points in Ansett’s Global Rewards Program when it went bust. There’s now a way to redeem them, at the Triple A Club. The catch is, you need to spend $1 to claim back 1 frequent flier point. In effect, to claim back 30,000 global rewards points, you need to spend $30,000 (which will net a total of 60,000 Triple A points under the gold scheme). Triple A points convert back to their value in cents. So, spend $30,000, get back $600 in rewards. Not a terrific incentive.

  6:24pm (GMT +10.00)  •  Travel  •  Tweet This  •  Add a comment  • 
8
Aug 02
Thu

Satellite Watching

Do you live in a part of the world not saturated by light pollution such that you can actually see stars at night? Heavens Above is a site that helps you watch satellites go overhead at night. The ISS is probably the easiest to track. It’s big and it’s bright.

Dune

Finished reading the classic, Dune. The language does at times make it slow going (they have a glossary in the back of the book for a reason). I found myself quite intrigued in the constant political scheming and way the Dune universe is structured, as well as in the ecology of Arrakis. The mentats and their clinical political computations reminded me of Bean in O.S. Card’s novels. Game theory in action, really (“feints within feints within feints”). The only parts I really started to lose interest in were when religion impinged upon science with its drug-induced prescient visions. I must admit though, that the idea of the Missionaria Protectiva is quite ingenious. If you haven’t read it, you should get around to it sooner or later.

Airport Security

Things have got plain out of hand when things like this happen. Next, security guards will be frisking breasts to make sure there aren’t any “plastic explosives” hidden underneath there. Thanks Vic (via Wade).

Responses:

about the breastmilk incident (the article from USA Today you linked), when i went to greece in march, they made me open and drink some of the water in each of the 6 500mL bottles i brought as a drink for the plane (not knowing i’d have full free access to a variety of beverages in comically small containers)

i didn’t think much of it at the time, y’know, better to be hassled a little than to go down a-flamin, right?

this isn’t the same situation, but what is the big deal with drinking a little breast milk? teenage guys DREAM about that sorta thing, right? and on top of that, what do you do when you burn your finger, or get a cut? right, assuming it’s not a plasma induced limb melting, or a gash that is causing severe blood loss, you stick it in your mouth and saliva works its first aid miracles.

bodily fluids, especially your own is really no big deal, and if it is, why are you feeding it to someone else?! senseless anger.

“She’s primarily concerned this doesn’t happen to somebody else,” Kuby said. “She does feel the people who did this were plain stupid, and should be punished in some way.”

bullshit. how would punishing this guy for following the rules strictly keep it from happening again? he should get a medal, a commendation or some other citation for good rule following. she should have expected it… what a dumbass, she needs to spend less time henning around walmart, and more time in the real world imho.
Kevin Cedrone

Well you’re always going to get people who think nothing of incidents like this, any people who take offence. Where do you draw the line? Should security guards exercise common sense?

Joke

A young blonde girl comes back from school one evening. She runs to her mum and says, “Mummy today at school we learnt how to count. Well, all the other girls only counted to 5, but listen to me: 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10! That’s good innit?”

“Yes darling, very good.”
“Is that because I’m blonde?”
“Yes darling, it’s because you’re blonde.”

Next day, the girl comes back from school and says, “Mummy, today at school we learned the alphabet. All the other girls only went as far as D, but listen to me: A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J,K! That’s good, innit?”
“Yes darling, very good.”
“Is that because I’m blonde, mummy?”
“Yes darling it’s because you’re blonde.”

Next day, she returns from school and cries “Mummy, today we went swimming, and well, all the other girls have no breasts, but look at me!”
She proceeds to flash her impressive 36 D at her mum. “Is that because I’m blonde, mummy?”

“No darling, it’s because you’re 25.”

Thanks Kev.

7
Aug 02
Wed

Vulcan BB Gun

Just on that arms race… Fuzzy, forget your bow, you need one of these.

5
Aug 02
Mon

Test Australia

Test Australia. Register for nationwide IQ testing tonight on Channel 9.

Update: Scored 71/76 (-1 memory, -2 reasoning, -2 learning) -> 143.

1
Aug 02
Thu

Famous Last Words

From hell’s heart, I stab at thee… and other assorted quotations.

Anti-gravity

Some current developments in anti-grav tech. Thanks Vic.

Quality of Life

From Kev:

What we always knew: (but unfortunately what some overseas students can’t seem to appreciate!)

http://asia.cnn.com/2002/BUSINESS/asia/07/23/asia.living.biz/index.html

For those interested, a fuller treatment can be found here: http://hdr.undp.org/
(The site also contains the China & Arab Human Development Report.)

E-Mail from Canada

As a quick run-down, the first week was primarily sight-seeing and touristy stuff. Vancouver, Whistler, Kamloops, Calgary, and now finally in Edmonton. Highlights so far? For starters, the scenery is quite amazing – the rockies are gorgeous, massive, and well… a sight I’d recommend for everyone to see at least once in their lifetime. Went to a baseball game (that was a first for pretty much the whole group. We were making more noise than the rest of the stadium combined, and get this – we were on “Plays of the Week” on CBC Sports here. They filmed us dancing and going nuts in the stands, so yeah, the group managed to get on TV.

– From Pro, currently touring Canada with a dance group.

Plug

Deranged wanted a plug for Paranoia re-opening. So here it is.



ARCHIVES
2017: Jan Feb Mar Apr
2016: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2015: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2014: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2013: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2012: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2011: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2010: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2009: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2008: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2007: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2006: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2005: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2004: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2003: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2002: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2001: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
2000: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1999: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1998: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
s