Well well... it wasn't my ass cheek I was expecting but I guess each to their own
As I am using a PC rather than android apparently not hell yet.
As for mind reading - I really think you need more practise. Start with something simpler. A imaginary friend should suffice.

<presents the other cheek> Come on, right here - you know you want to. Isn't it about time you told me I was destined for hell?
I guess it's futile to say that the article talked about the effect of belief, not about whether a belief was an accurate representation of the reality. There is a difference.
Just as there is a difference between assuming what you meant and trying to find out.
.... "And your mind has nothing much to do with reality."
Such wisdom! Such judgement! You see into my mind like a.. wait let me think about it..oh I know ... "A Higher Power" (tm)
<sighs> Is this what you think will protect your fragile beliefs from examination?

Wrong about what specifically?
I certainly know how I would respond to a therapeutic situation which suggested that I would be better off believing in a higher power.
It also appears elsewhere in the comments that the people doing the study are actually religiously biased (they belong to the Templeton Foundation).
Any social or communicative bias causes an effect on the outcome of physiological result (whether they are specifically religiously biases or not).
I don't know how you think about the term "higher power" but to my mind it is very general indeed. It is not aligned to a particular doctrine nor to what higher power is being referred to. In such cases the ones making sense of that words are the individuals interpreting them. I was commenting in the most general of cases I could imagine where no specific higher power was under scrutiny.
Are you suggesting there is no social norm for believing there is a higher power? I suspect at least in America the general statistics would suggest otherwise.
There are no claims in the article that the differences are anything but short term, and there can be a lot of other influences that can have short term effects.
Over and above all that, I suspect by the nature of your generalised response that you are under the sway of your own bias. How will you determine an objective truth if that is the case?

By passing the size of this study for the moment.
From article: "Of the patients sampled, more than 30 percent claimed no specific religious affiliation yet still saw the same benefits in treatment if their belief in a higher power was rated as moderately or very high."
No religious affiliation means effectively that the higher power is just a way of imagining something looking out for you, caring for you and loving you.
I am not surprised that if you imagine there is someone caring about you and loving you you are going to feel more positive about life in general. That it is imaginary means it can not disappoint you. That the very act of that imagination is providing a short term positive future.
I'm sure if a patient had an actual love affair with a real human being, the effects would be the similar if not superior.
If on the other hand some therapist suggested to me personally that a I might like to think there is a higher power looking out for me, it would send me into a deeper depression because if that is how they think my mind works I really must despair.
We are also embedded in a culture where believing in a god (of some description) is seen as more socially normal than those who do not.
Normal is sometimes the more attractive option to the depressed than their current state. Simply joining the "belief group" is a social inclusive particularly over the short term.
That this question is being asked inside a treatment context, it's hard to think that that isn't a bias in the way people are treated, and it doesn't take much for such a bias to undermine any other treatment.
I do hope they don't think that taking up the habit of thinking of a higher power is a treatment option. If that is the case, perhaps a drug addiction should be considered a treatment too.

The way a message is delivered makes a difference to how people make sense of it.
If there was a billion dollar campaign saying "People who drink milk are less intelligent than those who don't" - even if there was no science behind that. It would have an influence.
We are already at the mercy of the quality of the available information we get. That occurs before we have a belief about a topic.
One of the reasons science is successful and respected is it's approach to pursuing high quality models of the universe. Blatantly lying and ignoring the facts would destroy it's ability to do that. Why is it acceptable to do it else where?
I know we should be concerned about the thought police and I'm not suggesting that people not be able to think or believe freely. However, they should at least know enough to know the consequences of thinking in a particular way and pursue informed debate about the nature of information.
Otherwise we are all at the whim of those who wish to use the system for their own short term gains.

As I understand it, the only reason the body of america cares that the Texas school board makes wacky decisions (apart from their concern for Texan children) is that it affects the books that are available for schools across the country, due to the quantities of books involved.
This basically means it boils down to money. Good accurate books will be more expensive. In an age of digital media, surely the cost of having accurate science texts can be accepted by those schools who actually want to teach children rather than brain-wash them?
I think a sticker saying "This text has been rejected by the Texas school board" should be a mark excellence that is worth paying extra for.
The grander problem is, and has always been of more concern, that the school board is only really reflecting the views of the wider Texan community. If Americans really want to change the facts to fit their own world view how do you get around that?

I'm guessing it makes it easier for personnel from other agencies (police et al) to be told to ignore what is going on.
I also allows them to legally use resources outside ASIO to do things on their behalf, and redirect information acquired to other entities without finding they are breaking the law.

This is not hacking from the outside alone. This would validate ASIO entering your home and adding spy software/hardware directly.
Any idea of avoiding this would be very difficult.

You have no argument. My emotional response to a particular event isn't the basis for a good policy, or don't you understand the reasoning for a judicial system?
After calling me various names, knowing nothing of who I am or what my experiences are, by you own desire, you are happy to have me own a gun.
I'm afraid I can't share that desire.

My comment about people knowing policies was about the ASIO reference. That you associate my statements as a lack of dissent independent of gun availability are your own projection and opinion and as such have only that weight. In what sense you do not accept the system of government to whom you depend? In what sense are you "maintaining freedom"? What freedom(s) are you maintaining?
It is my point exactly that it is the popular opinion. I am surprised you don't understand the power of that. I guess that is why Americans have an atheist president ... oh yeah they don't...
A lot of this conversation make me wonder why have police. What is their function? You are happy for people to take the position of judge, jury and executioner? In this case with Susan Falls, you are saying she had no other choice what so ever? It was a gun or nothing? That the fact the she was found not guilty in protecting herself should always grant an exception as to the method in which she chose to do that? And I would gather from that, if I was the big guy and I am going to make sure the little woman never gets access to the equalization. Maybe that is just me. I'm sure that never happens...
I am saying that simply owning a gun doesn't empower some one by default. You seem to suggest that criminals will some how be in awe of a gun owner. Dumb criminals perhaps. It becomes another selection pressure to create more gun savvy criminals. I am saying that it just means you create a environment where by gun crimes will prosper.
So the second amendment was to provide for a citizen to protect themselves with guns from any potential threat. Why would there ever be a limitation as to what kind of weapons are made available to the populous then? What limitation should be placed on an individual, if they fundamental right is to over come any threat?
Are you trying to tell me that the situation in Australia in the 1990-200x is the same as America? That we have seen change in the distribution of crime in that interval is independent of gun laws, however, the gun laws were introduced in an attempt to prevent the mass shootings. To that end they have been successful so far. Making particular comments about what you were afraid of when you were young is no an indication that guns made that a difference. You mean if you had a gun on your property today you wouldn't be afraid of bikies? You think that there would be less "glassing" in pubs? I was not suggesting that. I was saying that I don't have to worry my neighbour will go berzerk and shoot people.
I know you have a intense feeling for this woman but you are effectively suggesting all rape will be ended if every one could own a gun. That is simply not true and it is fundamentally untrue. For every woman who gets to protect herself using a gun there would be another who would be raped facilitated by a gun. You are suggesting a woman has to carry a weapon with her always for her own protection. I assume you want men who are at risk of rape to be protected likewise. And altar boys should carry them into church in case the Father gets ideas. In fact all children should own and be taught to use guns so they can ward off paedophiles. At what point to you end that progression? When all rape ends? I am glad that this woman and any other woman out successfully protects themselves from rape by the use of the gun. However more open gun availability is not the solution to rape. I don't know why I would need to say that.
I have a close personal friend, she was in a pub, had a spiked drink and was raped (as far as she can determine). She doesn't remember who and is in counselling now. Having a gun would have make no difference to that experience, with the possible exception that some one else would own it now.

'We all know about it, unlike your scenario of secret detentions. '
People here would know if they are interested and inquiring. These policies are not hidden or secret. "People" seem to want to know what the Kardashians are thinking more than what affects their freedoms.
'Bradley Manning and everyone else already knew that if you have access to military secrets as part of your job you get in a lot of trouble if you leak them....' and yet they harass a man who has yet to be convicted of anything - why is that? Aren't people supposed to be innocent until proven guilty (even if they work in the military)? Can justice be done if the accused is treated badly by those in authority for months on end, particularly those with psych problems? Isn't the government accountable to the people for the policies they enact and condone?
'Most people don't think...' ..which is exactly my point. If you can lead the majority of people so they are convinced that they need take no action or that they are justified in a position consistent with the desires of the government - then they have won. Dissident talk is like an inoculation - it allows the illusion of freedom while glossing over the fact that actual changes to the government are difficult. You would only get significant change if a critical mass of people act. If you can prevent that then they have won. Look at way global warming is handled in the USA and you see it in action.
'It is clearly impossible to be a traitor to a country of which you are not a citizen....' so you don't like me using - cast as a traitor - how do they see him then - a terrorist? An enemy of the USA? Not kindly in any event or are you arguing to the opposite? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange Calls for Assange's assassination. .
A car is not designed to inflict harm. That is the difference in this metaphor. Just owning a vehicle that isn't road worthy isn't a crime because it poses no threat. The moment it's driven it is a threat, which is why that is not legal (apart from revenue razing of course)).
This description is a false dichotomy. You don't prevent all crime if you arm the citizens, you simply change the nature of it. It is not that her ability to defend herself was removed if she didn't have a gun (well except of course in the USA where there are guns everywhere and you would need it to be on a level playing field). It is that, if a person is lead to believe that societies systems will protect them when they might not. If you arm the victims you, simply arm the attackers. It is the nature of escalation. You noted before no system is perfect. People should be aware that systems fail. That they will be put in situations upon which they themselves will have to have skill to prevail. That is a big commitment of time and resources and in most civilized locations it seems unwarranted. Having a gun doesn't remove that requirement. You might be lucky and meet a stupid unsophisticated attacker and win with your gun. You might be unlucky and have them take you gun from you and use it against you. And once they have that gun - how easy is it for them to prevail against the next victim? Crime is always ugly and messy in this regard. There is no "magic bullet" that will prevent that. To be lulled into the complacent sense of safety I think is the true negligence but it is one that I am myself guilty of.
And, by the way, if this is the reasoning - why refer to the second amendment at all
As I said in my original post - the process of removing guns from the social environment is one that calms the situation over time. However, it must be pursued without creating the black market version of gun purchase where citizens condone access to inappropriate weapons, otherwise you simply repeat the mistakes of the prohibition of alcohol. It is not simple and I see no quick solution to it.

Hmmmm... guess that is why Julian Assange is held up in an embassy in London scared shitless he will be deported to the USA and tried as a spy. Similarly your suggesting that what is happening to Bradley Manning doesn't have a cooling effect to anyone else in the military who thinks it might be a good idea to leak classified documents?
My impression of what the average joe american wants to do to Assange is not pretty at all. He is not seen as the information freedom advocate but rather cast as a traitor.
They successfully blocked their ability to get funds, and compromised the core of the operation by CIA inflitration. There also seems to be a coldness with regards to the Australian governments support of Assange.
I don't think it would ever get to bombing cities, I think the leaders of dissent would be quietly removed before they ever became a serious concern.
If I use your example with Susan Falls, and she had been driving an unregistered car to effect her self defence - are you claiming the unregistered vehicle should somehow be okay simply because she had to use to it protect herself?
I am personally happy that there are few firearms in the community to contend with, and that those who have them should be registered. People with guns are far more efficient at killing people than without.
Having said all of that - I do hope that where needed a system of government could be changed by the dissent of the people. I just don't think that having a gun would make that more likely or effective. Education, information and the quality of querying of the official view of the world are the most important qualities of dissent.

So... having access to a few unlicensed semi-automatic weapons on the off chance that you might want to over throw your own government is a good thing then?
If you think guns are what a modern government would use to keep control over you, you might have missed the importance of the control of information.
Not sure if you are aware of this if you want to talk about Australia - but there are laws here empowering ASIO
to bug my computer without my knowledge, take me away without my telling any one, including my family, and if a reporter reports on it the reporter can be thrown into jail.
The use of a modern army is all about the ability of a government to control the context in which their actions are evaluated. The USA went to war with Iraq, for instance, on the basis there was an imminent threat of weapons of mass destruction use. That that was not the case doesn't really seem to worry anybody. No one has been held to account about that. What do you think they would bring to bare if it was a local national issue and not some distant country?
If your government really thought you were likely to lead a rebellion, you would be put at such an informational disadvantage, the use of your weapons could only be seen as acts of terrorism. I would gather the FBI and alike would be watching you way before you considered actually using a gun. If you some how got to the point of using it, the army and all other resources would then be "permitted" to use any and all means at their disposal to put you down.
In the mean time, you are inclined to add an extra level of insurance by having a gun handy because everyone else out there has one - including the people who will break in. I was not suggesting that crime would disappear if the guns were wound back - far from it. However, as long as they are as available as they are - you are in a cycle of having to own them, where you would like to or not. Of the things I like about America - their gun laws are not to be emulated IMHO.

I live in Australia, and seeing all those dots, seeing the density of them, is astonishing to me.
I noticed the comments from people being upset that these represent a possible "shopping list" for people who wish to acquire a gun, however as is commonly pointed out in other contexts, security via obscurity is very minimal security indeed. If a newspaper can acquire this information, you can safely assume any other interested party can do so.
If my interpretation of the second amendment is along the right lines, it was to intended to make sure that a government could be overthrown by the people, I think you guys need to reevaluate how effective any gun you can own is in a modern age. You would be up against the largest military in history.
If you wish to have no tracking or boundary for gun types, you are effectively creating the environment where there is a constant battle between those who would do harm with guns and those who need to protect themselves. An environment of escalation. If on the other hand you take steps to reduce the overall availability of guns over time, you would at least be slowly calming the situation. Looking at these numbers I can't help feeling it would take decades however. It would have to be carefully done not to create the equivalent of your prohibition of alcohol, where guns become a black marketed item for the general populous.
I feel for you guys - it seems an unenviable situation, particularly when I look to the future of weapons and see them becoming even deadlier with each passing year.

What is going to be considered porn? If I write something sexy in an email - does it get blocked? Does this happen in every language? If someone sends a sexy photo to someone who hasn't opted-in are they breaking the law?

Who is responsible for that, the ISP/government/sender?

If you "opt-in" who gets to see the list of people who have done so? How will this be audited and by whom?

Can this be the basis of a search warrant? If you bypass the filter are you breaking a law? If you help someone bypass a filter are you breaking the law? If you are a child and you bypass the filter are you breaking the law?

Will MP's have to own up to if they have opted-in? How will we know they are being truthful? What will happen if they are not? What happens if they visit friends houses where the friends have opted-in? Will this be true for all public figures and government employees?

If you "opt-in" and your children "see porn" does this mean you are accountable to the government in some way?

If your kids go visit their friends in a "opt-in" household does this mean their parents are responsible in defying the law some how?

If the ISP accidentally allows someone access to porn without their "opting-in" what does that mean? Can parents sue the government/ISP/auditors?

If your in a custody dispute with a spouse, will it be legitimate for them to discover if you have opted-in to internet.

What happens if the ISP blocks things that aren't porn? Who will know? What recourse will there be if they block a legitimate business site?

Who will make the list of porn sites?

If the government does it, and they start blocking "non-porn" sites - how will people know? How will it be fixed? How long will that take?

Will companies and institutions be able to opt-in en mass or will they need approval from every member of their staff?

Will libraries automatically "opt-in"? If the filter is not accurate and blocks items that are medical or sexual education - and you are a school/library/university etc will you have to opt-in just to be sure you get the information you need?

I am sure they are not thinking this through...