Why Net Neutrality is an important issue.

One of the reasons I rarely post about politics is because honestly, most of the issues today are First World Problems. Everyone has an opinion about what is important and what is not important about gay marriage and marijuana legalization, but do you really think Ethiopia or Egypt or other struggling countries care about these issues? They have more important legislation to focus on.

Net Neutrality, on the other hand, is an issue that every country cares about and effects everyone in the country. It is up there with Freedom of Speech and Human Rights. On one extreme we have China that filters all of their media via ISPs and culls mass gathering organization via ISP firewalls and keeps out other countries news in order to control the masses. The Egyptian government shut down the internet when they felt the population was organizing a revolt. The Middle East filters out and persecutes those who post anti Muslim content.

Prior to the FCC ruling we had no such restrictions on our ISPs and they could literally do whatever they wanted. The idea was that ISPs could self regulate and be reasonable and ethical all on their own without government intervention. If they wanted to filter out media from a specific political party they could, but we trusted them not to. We assumed they were ethical enough on their own to not do such things.

Then the Netflix/Comcast thing happened and everyone suddenly realized this trust was violated. Verizon jumped on the money train and CenturyLink did too and it went from one company violating trust to starting down a path no one liked (except big business).

That's when Obama petitioned the FCC to make the Net Neutrality ruling that eventually came to pass.

Since then I have heard some of the most uneducated statements about this than I have ever seen about any topic. That is why I have posted so much about this recently. I am terrified this amazing ruling that will do so much good for our country will be overturned.

The FCC is not governing websites. They are not doing anything with websites. They are governing ISPs. They are essentially saying they cannot block or throttle sites just because they do not like them or because their product competes with something ISP does.

This issue is not party specific. Even though it was Obama that petitioned the FCC to make this ruling, it should not be associated solely with the Democratic party. Absolutely no one stands to gain from being anti-Net Neutrality except for big business ISPs who can (and do) blackmail websites out of their profits.

Even if you don't like the bill being passed right now, for crying out loud, do not be anti-Net Neutrality. It is on the same level as being anti-Freedom of Speech. Even if you want something different passed, that's fine, but do not stop Net Neutrality legislation! The big business ISPs have failed to be ethical and the government SHOULD intervene now because they have violated our trust and will continue to do so with no regrets!

A Plea to Republicans about Net Neutrality

I read a blog from a Republican yesterday that made me feel like there are a lot of people out there grossly unaware of what is going on right now. I found this quote in the blog:

The typical nightmare scenario that gets trotted out goes something like this: Comcast, the giant ISP that controls NBC Universal, will push its own content on users by simply blocking sites that offer competing content. Or maybe it will degrade the video streams of Netflix and Amazon so no one will want to watch them. Or perhaps Comcast will just charge Netflix a lot of money to make sure its streams flow smoothly over that "last mile" that the ISP controls. Or perhaps Comcast will implement tighter and tighter data caps on the amount of usage a given subscriber can use per month, but exempt its own content from any such limitations.

It's worth noting—indeed, it's worth stressing—that essentially none of these scenarios has come to pass over the past 20 years, despite the lack of Net Neutrality legislation.

 My Republican friends, welcome to the nightmare. Every scenario this person laid out has come to pass and is currently happening today.

For years Comcast and other ISPs have been throttling Netflix and YouTube and other video streaming services. They were caught in this act and even confirmed it. Finally Comcast stopped denying it and said "Yeah, we're doing it and if you want us to stop then you'll have to pay us part of your profits... Deal with it!"

Netflix, being blackmailed out of their profits, eventually agreed to pay because what other choice did they have?

But it didn't end there. Now Verizon wants a cut too in order to stream Netflix at full resolution. So again, Netflix has to divy up it's profit to ISPs that do nothing. Where does it end? Are all ISPs going to adopt this extortion tactic? And what about other companies that cannot afford this blackmailing?

I have heard Republicans say this FCC ruling will stifle innovation but I cannot imagine anything stiffing innovation more than if this continues.

I understand that Obama asked the FCC to make this ruling and therefore Republicans are required to hate it, but put down the political walls for a second and see what is happening around us. Big business is clearly NOT capable of making good choices here.

If you think what the businesses are currently doing is okay, I want to tell you my Comcast tale. I love watching Netflix and so does my whole family, we watch it as much as we can. And even though Netflix pays Comcast to not throttle them, they throttle us 1 out of every 4 weeks.

That's right, even though Netflix pays a huge chunk of money to make sure their video gets to me, Comcast still will not let me watch it as much as I like. So even after they have been blackmailed and paid up, they are still holding broadband hostage because Netflix hurts their TV package sales.

This is not a nightmare scenario, this is the reality we are living in today and if you think it's going to get better on its own without government intervention you are fooling yourself as they have clearly demonstrated otherwise.

You can hate all the Democratic bills you like and continue cringing at everything Obama says, but PLEASE do not act or vote against these Net Neutrality actions. Despite the fact that it is supported by Obama, both parties and all of America will benefit from Net Neutrality.

Judging God

Today I was speaking to a skeptic and he asked a question I have heard many times. The way I respond is never liked but it is the truth. I do not want anyone to think this is a straw man argument so I will just quote him:

So, let's say I get caught stealing a loaf of bread from a baker. I get taken before the Judge and he asks me how I plead. I plead guilty and offer to reimburse the baker for the bread and do 100 hours of public service.
But instead, the Judge tells me I must choose between getting no punishment at all in return for worshiping him forever, or being tortured and executed.
Does that sound like a just deal to you? Does that sound like a deal I should be thankful to receive?

There are many problems with the analogy. First is the mistake of believing there is "no punishment at all." When we accept Jesus as our salvation, the punishment was taken by Jesus. So the analogy would be better served by having the Judge offer his own son take the torture and execution in his place. The biggest problem though is that the judge is human.

Were this judge human, I could see his point. Seems odd and unreasonable because he is really no better than the person being judged. I can also understand humans because I am one myself. The judge is not omnipotent and can only process so much of the accused's life to make such a judgement. In short, the judge of the analogy is flawed.

So let's change the analogy to a judge who is not human, but an omnipotent all-knowing being. That in itself is not enough, so let's add that this judge created the accused and the world the accused lives in. Now we have a better picture.

Are you omnipotent? Can you see all things and know all things? I cannot. I do not know what that's like. Such a power is far beyond my comprehension. I can, to some degree, create things. I can create programs, and art, and machines. In this sense, I can minutely understand being a creator.

So let's go down that path. What if my programs I write decided one day that I'm doing it wrong and they know better than me. Is this reasonable for my program to do this? What if my graphic told me it had too much blue in it? What qualification does my picture have to make such a judgement?

In the same way, I have no grounds by which to judge God and whether or not He is moral. I cannot fathom all of the things God knows that I do not. It would be like a worm trying to understand how to program Java. No matter how hard the worm tries, it simply is not capable of doing such a thing because it is not on the same level as me.

This is where trust comes in. There are some people who see what God does and determines that God is cruel and unjust and mean. Another sees the exact same actions and drops to his knees with thankfulness of how merciful God is. To me, this is evidence of the Holy Spirit in people's lives.

Some people have set themselves up to be God's enemy by choice. Kind of reminds me of most Democrats and Republicans I know. They predetermine to hate whatever the opposing party does no matter what it is. To some Democrats, Republicans can do no right and some Republicans, Democrats can do no right (sometimes even when they do the same things). The same way to some people God can do no right and to others (like me) everything He does is right.

Is it cruel for God to send people to Hell for eternity for all of the bad things they have done in their life? That's not a question I'm even willing to answer because I am not qualified to judge God's morality.

Skeptics will hate this answer but it's the truth. I just recognize that I deserve Hell for all the sins I have committed and I would worship God for the mercy He gave me from his Son even if He did not ask me to.

Tech Mash: LyteShot + Project Tango VR Headset

Okay Google ATAP, I hope you hear me on this one:

So who are the players in this game of Tech Mash?

In corner one, we have LyteShot. This is a startup trying to reach a Kickstarter for an upgraded version of laser tag. It looks super fun the way it is. With the standard laser tag features you get a "wii remote" type of laser gun and a sensor to put on yourself. You can add attachments to the gun to make it an actually gun or dagger or wand or (in the future) bow and arrow, etc.

They also have a HUD glasses they are working on that can show you the position of the other players, give you a quick look at the scores and have other information you need on the fly.

From there, all players in the game use their smartphones and the game can keep score and play alternative games such as Assassin or capture the flag or any thing others come up with. It's open source so anyone can develop games for this laser tag platform. It really does sound super cool as is.

In the next corner, we have Google's Project Tango with a VR Headset. I always felt that would be an amazing addition to Project Tango as it can sense the world around you in 3D and basically turn your living room into a jungle and you can hunt tigers in your back yard. With the VR headset it would make you feel like you were right there.

One of the things LyteShot boasts is the ability to create different rules and classes for it's players playing in the real world. So basically you can play a warrior class and a wizard class and a military class. All using the same laser gun with various attachments. And while that is for sure, really cool, there are limits since it is real world. You could never be a non-human class.

So what if you hooked these contraptions up to Project Tango VR? Suddenly the boundaries have been eliminated. Tango could potentially overlay a player with any thing. Imagine a LyteShot game where it's all versus the dragon and a physical player is the dragon. Using the remotes they are all attacking the person who is the dragon and with the Tango VR headset, all the players actually see the player as a dragon!

It's the best of both worlds. Live physical world games with the fantasy advantages of augmented reality. You can either cosplay your character or generate your character by selecting a 3D model to overlay yourself so that when the other players see you, they only see your avatar moving in sync with you.

What do you think? Is this something you'd pay $200 or $500 for?

How to be an Online Apologist

In Christian apologetics, we essentially take the role of a lawyer both pleading and defending the case for Jesus. Many times we forget this and spend far too much time debating on inconsequential things. I hope to share this week some techniques I have picked up over the years that will help apologists stay on topic and focus on the real issue.

Often we assume to much in a debate and those assumptions can lead to easy counter arguments and off topic conversations.

Reply in Love

Remember, we are playing the roles of lawyers in a court case. It is very important to keep your debate professional. Especially as Christians it is important to respond in love, gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15). Whenever we post our responses to even the most livid of atheists, we should always make sure our response can pass all of the criteria mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7 because we should love our enemies and pray for those who persecute us (Matthew 5:44).

Keep it Focused

Stay on topic! Skeptics will often respond to Christian apologetics by diverting the topic. For example, I have had people consistently bring up pedophilia among Catholic priests in the middle of a debate. When these type of things happen, ignore it. Don't try to defend it, don't try to call them out on trying to divert the conversation, simply ignore it. It's not relevant and they probably know it, it's simply a way to get around answering harder questions.

Always make sure they answer your questions. Many times if they do use diverting statements, it is because they do not want to answer your question. Other times it is because they may think it answers your question, but always make sure they answer your question. If you need to, ask the question again.

Build a Case

One piece of evidence is not enough. A question I get often from atheists is "What is the one piece of evidence that makes you believe the resurrection occurred?" Whether they intend it to be or not, if you answer this question, you will have walked into a trap. One piece of evidence is not enough to believe anything at all. There is nothing we believe based solely on one piece of evidence. If you give them only one piece of evidence, they can and will be able to counter it, because anyone can counter one piece of evidence. Even if you say "I saw the resurrected Jesus myself" they could counter with hallucinations or many different things which can manipulate sight. One piece of evidence is never enough evidence.

Remember again, we are playing the role of a lawyer. No lawyer can win a case on one piece of evidence alone. We have to build a case based on significant amounts of evidence, not simply one piece. You may want to practice this part and play around with your responses. I rarely answer the question at all and ask them what one piece of evidence makes them believe there is no god. Another response would be to get three or four pieces of evidence you know well and lay them all down at once. It will force the atheist to create a string of counter arguments, to which you can simply reply "Or Jesus was resurrected. Which is the most simple answer?"

They are Watching

You may not be writing these responses for the skeptic themselves. Remember that in public forums many times other people are reading your conversation. This is another reason you want to keep your responses reasonable and professional and loving. Even if the skeptic is being livid, if someone else is reading the conversation, you will lose credibility in their eyes if you are livid right back at them. Rarely have I ever seen a skeptic concede during a debate, but many times I have been contacted days and even weeks later by people who read a debate of mine just to thank me for what I said and how much it encouraged their faith. With this in mind, remember others are paying attention, even if you don't see them.

Keep it Short

Keep it as short as you can. Even if they write 10 pages, I often will only write maybe a paragraph or two in response. This assures a few things. One is that they will read your entire response. Long responses are often not read in forums, many TL-DR it (too long, didn't read). Two, it leaves little room for confusion of what you are trying to get across.

Some techniques I use to keep it short is only responding to one point at a time. The skeptic may have brought up several points of contention, however, if you reply to all of them, then their response gets longer till no one wants to read either response. Keep it focused. One topic at a time, one question at a time. These type of responses seem to keep the case able to move forward.

You Probably Do Not Know Them

It is important to keep prejudices out of the conversation. That alone can be the most diverting topics. Avoid statements like "you probably..." or "I bet you..." Even if you happen to be right about your assumption, it is irrelevant to the conversation and does not help your case. It will most likely make them defensive of themselves and not the issue at hand. Such statements are a waste of time and will get you no where.