'Studies Reveal Why Kids Get Bullied and Rejected' - is a bad title for the summary, and the article. It does indeed seem to 'lay blame' on the victims - because it claims to have found the (one?) reason behind bullying; the victim's social abilities. From reading the article (sorry), it is clear that the study is not saying this is the reason (let alone only reason) behind bullying. It is about "...factors in a child's behavior that can lead to social rejection"; it is saying certain kids are more likely to be bullied, not that they are at fault! If someone told you skinny, physically weak kids were more likely to be bullied, would you get mad at them for suggesting it is the skinny kid's fault?
A better title would be 'Studies Reveal Why Certain Kids Get Bullied and Rejected'. Blame the journalist, not the study.
...I'm getting really tired of the victims being cited as the root of the problems here.
They aren't. The article does not say that. The article is not about that.
The article is about how victims are chosen. It no more accuses the victims of bullying, than does a study saying a certain group of women are likely to be raped.
While it is true that one could go away from that article with the thought that 'it is all the victims fault', this is not at all a conclusion the article draws. One is right to fear such a response to the article, but there is also hope for better prevention; both from helping the likely victims and just knowing who to look out for.
Quite possibly, though it would be different for different domains. When it comes to bugs in software, obviously! To avoid Godwins law by a few borders, lets take the genocide in Rwanda as something which it would be pretty hard to explain by stupidity (without waxing philosophical).
So I would still not say that "stupidity is a better explanation than malice" is implied by Occams Razor, and certainly not that they mean the same. But in certain domains, it could be a corollary...
You might be able to argue, that the latter saying is a corollary of the former, but in no way do they mean the same.
Occam says the simplest explanation is best - the better explanation is the one with least assumptions.
In this case, Occam affords us no help - we already know MS is both "evil" and incompetent. So the two explanations are equal in this regard. The "corollary" suggests, then, something else; namely that stupidity is a better explanation than "evil" in all/most cases (presumably because stupidity is more widespread).
True. Stupidity accumulates in organizations and systems. The trick is to try and set up those organizations and systems to avoid the worst of this effect - eg. by publicly shaming and firing people for shit like this, so the next vice-principal will not "play it safe" by evacuating a school before talking to the kid or just looking at the goddamn thing...
Exactly! The relevant thing, when considering guilt here, is what standard he believed he was going to be held to: Am I responsible for the security first (he should have withheld the passwords) or is someone else responsible for security (he should have handed the passwords over). Unless someone said the three magic words ('I accept responsibility'), I cannot see how he could ever be guilty of anything but being dedicated.
"You do not have a right to tangible things. They cost money".
So does intangibles like justice. The court system costs money, but is a tangible thing we need to have, in order to secure justice. It is not enough that the government simply not commit injustices, it must secure it for all.
Free speech is the same - it is not enough that the government not coerce you not to speak, it should ensure everyone is heard. Luckily, this can easily be done today, by making sure everyone has internet access. Or, if you do not believe free speech is all that important (though it is more important to democracy than free elections, according to some), you must at least guarantee that no one is being cheated or coerced out of their piece of the free speech pie - ie. net neutrality.
(The subject is fascinating, though; can something manmade be a birthright? Language? Education? Free elections?)
Security theater isn't inherently bad. People get scared very easily. We could say "sure, we've added in some minor stop gaps but the main result is that we hope if you get hijacked you'll do your patriotic duty to stop the hijackers or barring that bringing the plane down. And bombings? We aren't very concerned about them. Such events have been very rare for a long time." People wouldn't respond rationally to that.
And if we keep playing security theater (new pseudonym for Fox News?) for them, they will be even less likely to respond rationally. You cannot force people in a democracy or crowd to behave much smarter than they would themselves - our only hope is to encourage critical thinking in every citizen. So yes, I'd say security theatre is inherently bad - it talks down to people, degrades their ability to make their own decisions and spins an illusion. While playing into the terrorists' hands. I say you are either ready to do your duty as a human being and stop the hijackers, or you shouldn't fly (toddlers and senior citizens excluded).
The problem is flow charts with descriptions of what some section of what you're patenting does because while you can engineer around an innovative break design in a car you can never engineer your way around a box in a flow chart reading "slows car down".
Exactly. And software is nothing but flowcharts. What seems at one point only an "innovative break" might in other cases, with other input, or developed along a line only the patent holder has the rights to, become something else entirely. Something like a "slow car down"-box.
Well, my side of the argument still holds - just because someone is bound to ignore a stupid law, and hence mitigate its bad effect, this does not excuse the stupid law.
Or put differently, patenting math would have led to either one or few owners of everything in the field, or to (some) people ignoring the law and only letting those who do not get hurt. In both cases, the better solution is not to patent math.
I don't really get where you're going here. I was addressing the argument that "if math was patentable, disaster would have striked" as a parallel to software patents. In your previous post, I thought you said, basically that "disaster would not strike" from patenting mathematics. I think it would, and told you why - I don't really see any counterargument here...?
Maybe you are moving the discussion elsewhere, and I am being dense?
If calculus had been patented, the patent would also have expired something like 300 years ago. And there would probably be extensive cross licensing, like in the microprocessor world.
I'm not saying that software patents are a good thing or that current patent law makes sense, I'm just pointing out that your argument is histrionic.
I think the argument holds. While the original patent to calculus would have expired, the inventions made from it by the owner or those licensing would now be owned, and so on. Also, cross licensing of math is only marginally better for 99% of us, than "one man owns math".
When you develop a drug or a new car engine, you have to invest hundred of millions of dollars. Spending a few millions on patent lawyering is nothing.
Good point! And there is no infinite subset of possibly viable car engines which your patent necessarily also covers, and precludes others from inventing.
You can't make laws that people can infringe without knowing it. Lawyers might love them for all the business it brings them, but it's just fundamentally wrong.
Good point! Though you can make such laws, they just have a huge cooling effect on invention as a natural consequence.
(I'd mod you up, if I hadn't entered the debate already).
Also, his argument fails, since anything which can be formalized - and that's quite a lot - can be made into software, which can be made into a machine. According to his argument, all inventions in mathematics, logic, most physics and god knows what else should be patentable.
OK, this is clearer to me. I can see your point regarding racism vs. xenophobia - and I agree we should differentiate, even if I do not agree completely on your definitions.
I still maintain that racism, your or my definition, is not compatible with the mindset of "all people's opinion are, all else being equal, equally important and relevant" - which is the basis for voting at all...
Xenophobia, or distrust of strangers, might be - it is the belief that "the others" are inherently worth less than you, which is incompatible with an egalitarian democracy.
Sorry, but I do not agree that one can equate racism with cultural preferences with "empty word" with...
I agree with half you're saying, and the other half seems completely nonssensical. Racism is not an invention. I am not against multiculturalism because I am against racism. Etc.
I am afraid I don't find your theories all that fascinating, nor well-presented or -argued. So I am going to bow out of this discussion.
PS: It's the Faroe Islands that have been in the media for killing Dolphins, not Denmark. And they are 100% irrelevant regardless.
I totally agree with your focus on culture, and that there can be situations where it makes sense to consider race a factor. Black people (or anyone else, of course) are justified in believing that Obama will, if nothing else, then have to, focus on the problems of race. And voting for him need not even be self-serving, in that case - healing the wounds of racism in America is a worthwhile and important goal. Voting for a black guy because he will put it on the agenda by his skin colour alone, might be better suited, and will be forced to do something about the issue, simply because of his own skin, is justified and fine.
Voting for him because you think blacks are better than whites is not.
A parallel argument could be made regarding Hillary Clinton and feminism.
Your question about dolphins is irrelevant, but I can answer it easily anyway. Of course you are not necessarily against voting because of how you treat dolphins. They have no relevance to the concept of democracy/voting. Other human beings do.
But if you do not believe all people are basically equal, then giving everyone an equal vote cannot make sense: "I believe that guy is not truly human, because he is black/blue/whatever; but I want him to have a say in how to run our country" - doesn't work, does it?
(If, and that is a pretty insane if, we assume that eg. people from Denmark are truly not really human at all, then of course you should not give them the vote, and this would be consistent with being for voting. But that argument hinges on having already proven that your least favourtite race/culture are not really human.)
Easy. It is wrong for anyone, including blacks, to vote for a guy based on his skin colour, including black. (It is quite another thing if Obama, for instance, is the only guy you trust to concern himself with black issues - this is of course a valid reason to vote for him, as long as your belief is rational and not based solely on "I like the guy because he is the same colour as me").
I am not concerned with shitstorms, nor how accepted a given practise is - only whether it is right and whether it is consistent (here, with the basic ideas of democracy).
If you believe some people are inherently worth more than others, then the idea of giving everyone a vote does not make sense.
This is not ethics, it's simple logic.
You do not seem to have clue about who I am, what I believe or why - but I am not going to educate on this. You should be able to keep quiet about stuff you do not know about on your own.
I am not claiming there is no difference, why would you think that?
I know the US is a republic. So was the Roman state at one time. The Roman state, however, was not democratic. The US is (or at least tries to be - if nothing else, then in the intent of its constitution).
"Republic" means very little as a specific political term. Mainly that there is a head of state, and that he or she is elected. This is not inherently democratic (in the modern sense) - if only a select few can vote, it can still be a republic without being democratic. In the US, "republic" has further connotations - for instance of "democratic" for the simple reason that USA is a democratic republic.
I am not arguing that they are the same at all. While the US constitution speaks of a republic (they had just gotten rid of a king, they were rather keen on the whole "No king, No king, nah nah nah nah nah nah!"-issue), what it sets out to create is a (non-simple) democracy/democratic republic.
Slashdot Mirror
...to say the least.
'Studies Reveal Why Kids Get Bullied and Rejected' - is a bad title for the summary, and the article. It does indeed seem to 'lay blame' on the victims - because it claims to have found the (one?) reason behind bullying; the victim's social abilities.
From reading the article (sorry), it is clear that the study is not saying this is the reason (let alone only reason) behind bullying. It is about "...factors in a child's behavior that can lead to social rejection"; it is saying certain kids are more likely to be bullied, not that they are at fault! If someone told you skinny, physically weak kids were more likely to be bullied, would you get mad at them for suggesting it is the skinny kid's fault?
A better title would be 'Studies Reveal Why Certain Kids Get Bullied and Rejected'. Blame the journalist, not the study.
...I'm getting really tired of the victims being cited as the root of the problems here.
They aren't. The article does not say that. The article is not about that.
The article is about how victims are chosen. It no more accuses the victims of bullying, than does a study saying a certain group of women are likely to be raped.
Somebody mod this up!
While it is true that one could go away from that article with the thought that 'it is all the victims fault', this is not at all a conclusion the article draws.
One is right to fear such a response to the article, but there is also hope for better prevention; both from helping the likely victims and just knowing who to look out for.
Hm... Interesting.
Quite possibly, though it would be different for different domains. When it comes to bugs in software, obviously! To avoid Godwins law by a few borders, lets take the genocide in Rwanda as something which it would be pretty hard to explain by stupidity (without waxing philosophical).
So I would still not say that "stupidity is a better explanation than malice" is implied by Occams Razor, and certainly not that they mean the same.
But in certain domains, it could be a corollary...
That's a pretty rough translation!
You might be able to argue, that the latter saying is a corollary of the former, but in no way do they mean the same.
Occam says the simplest explanation is best - the better explanation is the one with least assumptions.
In this case, Occam affords us no help - we already know MS is both "evil" and incompetent. So the two explanations are equal in this regard. The "corollary" suggests, then, something else; namely that stupidity is a better explanation than "evil" in all/most cases (presumably because stupidity is more widespread).
You mean like Justin Long and John Hodgeman beating up Brent Spiner?
Or making sweet, sweet, manly love!
True. Stupidity accumulates in organizations and systems.
The trick is to try and set up those organizations and systems to avoid the worst of this effect - eg. by publicly shaming and firing people for shit like this, so the next vice-principal will not "play it safe" by evacuating a school before talking to the kid or just looking at the goddamn thing...
Exactly!
The relevant thing, when considering guilt here, is what standard he believed he was going to be held to: Am I responsible for the security first (he should have withheld the passwords) or is someone else responsible for security (he should have handed the passwords over).
Unless someone said the three magic words ('I accept responsibility'), I cannot see how he could ever be guilty of anything but being dedicated.
"You do not have a right to tangible things. They cost money".
So does intangibles like justice. The court system costs money, but is a tangible thing we need to have, in order to secure justice. It is not enough that the government simply not commit injustices, it must secure it for all.
Free speech is the same - it is not enough that the government not coerce you not to speak, it should ensure everyone is heard. Luckily, this can easily be done today, by making sure everyone has internet access.
Or, if you do not believe free speech is all that important (though it is more important to democracy than free elections, according to some), you must at least guarantee that no one is being cheated or coerced out of their piece of the free speech pie - ie. net neutrality.
(The subject is fascinating, though; can something manmade be a birthright? Language? Education? Free elections?)
Security theater isn't inherently bad. People get scared very easily. We could say "sure, we've added in some minor stop gaps but the main result is that we hope if you get hijacked you'll do your patriotic duty to stop the hijackers or barring that bringing the plane down. And bombings? We aren't very concerned about them. Such events have been very rare for a long time." People wouldn't respond rationally to that.
And if we keep playing security theater (new pseudonym for Fox News?) for them, they will be even less likely to respond rationally. You cannot force people in a democracy or crowd to behave much smarter than they would themselves - our only hope is to encourage critical thinking in every citizen. So yes, I'd say security theatre is inherently bad - it talks down to people, degrades their ability to make their own decisions and spins an illusion. While playing into the terrorists' hands.
I say you are either ready to do your duty as a human being and stop the hijackers, or you shouldn't fly (toddlers and senior citizens excluded).
The problem is flow charts with descriptions of what some section of what you're patenting does because while you can engineer around an innovative break design in a car you can never engineer your way around a box in a flow chart reading "slows car down".
Exactly. And software is nothing but flowcharts. What seems at one point only an "innovative break" might in other cases, with other input, or developed along a line only the patent holder has the rights to, become something else entirely. Something like a "slow car down"-box.
Ah... OK.
Well, my side of the argument still holds - just because someone is bound to ignore a stupid law, and hence mitigate its bad effect, this does not excuse the stupid law.
Or put differently, patenting math would have led to either one or few owners of everything in the field, or to (some) people ignoring the law and only letting those who do not get hurt.
In both cases, the better solution is not to patent math.
Same with software...
I don't really get where you're going here. I was addressing the argument that "if math was patentable, disaster would have striked" as a parallel to software patents.
In your previous post, I thought you said, basically that "disaster would not strike" from patenting mathematics. I think it would, and told you why - I don't really see any counterargument here...?
Maybe you are moving the discussion elsewhere, and I am being dense?
If calculus had been patented, the patent would also have expired something like 300 years ago. And there would probably be extensive cross licensing, like in the microprocessor world.
I'm not saying that software patents are a good thing or that current patent law makes sense, I'm just pointing out that your argument is histrionic.
I think the argument holds. While the original patent to calculus would have expired, the inventions made from it by the owner or those licensing would now be owned, and so on. Also, cross licensing of math is only marginally better for 99% of us, than "one man owns math".
In practice, there is a world of difference.
When you develop a drug or a new car engine, you have to invest hundred of millions of dollars. Spending a few millions on patent lawyering is nothing.
Good point! And there is no infinite subset of possibly viable car engines which your patent necessarily also covers, and precludes others from inventing.
You can't make laws that people can infringe without knowing it. Lawyers might love them for all the business it brings them, but it's just fundamentally wrong.
Good point! Though you can make such laws, they just have a huge cooling effect on invention as a natural consequence.
(I'd mod you up, if I hadn't entered the debate already).
Brigand! Expect an angry horde of lawyers with rootkits, search warrents and baseball bats any minute.
Also, his argument fails, since anything which can be formalized - and that's quite a lot - can be made into software, which can be made into a machine. According to his argument, all inventions in mathematics, logic, most physics and god knows what else should be patentable.
Does this: http://goldfish.ikaruga.co.uk/andnor.html mean the idea of a conjunction (all uses of "and") is patentable?
Since we're exchanging links - if anyone wants to go really nuts over the matter of what knowledge can be owned and how, there's this philosophy thesis:
http://www.archive.org/details/OwnershipOfKnowledgeIsThereANaturalRightTointellectualProperty
Full disclosure: it's mine.
OK, this is clearer to me. I can see your point regarding racism vs. xenophobia - and I agree we should differentiate, even if I do not agree completely on your definitions.
I still maintain that racism, your or my definition, is not compatible with the mindset of "all people's opinion are, all else being equal, equally important and relevant" - which is the basis for voting at all...
Xenophobia, or distrust of strangers, might be - it is the belief that "the others" are inherently worth less than you, which is incompatible with an egalitarian democracy.
Sorry, but I do not agree that one can equate racism with cultural preferences with "empty word" with...
I agree with half you're saying, and the other half seems completely nonssensical. Racism is not an invention. I am not against multiculturalism because I am against racism. Etc.
I am afraid I don't find your theories all that fascinating, nor well-presented or -argued.
So I am going to bow out of this discussion.
PS: It's the Faroe Islands that have been in the media for killing Dolphins, not Denmark. And they are 100% irrelevant regardless.
I totally agree with your focus on culture, and that there can be situations where it makes sense to consider race a factor. Black people (or anyone else, of course) are justified in believing that Obama will, if nothing else, then have to, focus on the problems of race. And voting for him need not even be self-serving, in that case - healing the wounds of racism in America is a worthwhile and important goal. Voting for a black guy because he will put it on the agenda by his skin colour alone, might be better suited, and will be forced to do something about the issue, simply because of his own skin, is justified and fine.
Voting for him because you think blacks are better than whites is not.
A parallel argument could be made regarding Hillary Clinton and feminism.
Your question about dolphins is irrelevant, but I can answer it easily anyway. Of course you are not necessarily against voting because of how you treat dolphins. They have no relevance to the concept of democracy/voting. Other human beings do.
But if you do not believe all people are basically equal, then giving everyone an equal vote cannot make sense:
"I believe that guy is not truly human, because he is black/blue/whatever; but I want him to have a say in how to run our country" - doesn't work, does it?
(If, and that is a pretty insane if, we assume that eg. people from Denmark are truly not really human at all, then of course you should not give them the vote, and this would be consistent with being for voting. But that argument hinges on having already proven that your least favourtite race/culture are not really human.)
Easy. It is wrong for anyone, including blacks, to vote for a guy based on his skin colour, including black.
(It is quite another thing if Obama, for instance, is the only guy you trust to concern himself with black issues - this is of course a valid reason to vote for him, as long as your belief is rational and not based solely on "I like the guy because he is the same colour as me").
I am not concerned with shitstorms, nor how accepted a given practise is - only whether it is right and whether it is consistent (here, with the basic ideas of democracy).
If you believe some people are inherently worth more than others, then the idea of giving everyone a vote does not make sense.
This is not ethics, it's simple logic.
You do not seem to have clue about who I am, what I believe or why - but I am not going to educate on this. You should be able to keep quiet about stuff you do not know about on your own.
I am not claiming there is no difference, why would you think that?
I know the US is a republic. So was the Roman state at one time. The Roman state, however, was not democratic. The US is (or at least tries to be - if nothing else, then in the intent of its constitution).
"Republic" means very little as a specific political term. Mainly that there is a head of state, and that he or she is elected. This is not inherently democratic (in the modern sense) - if only a select few can vote, it can still be a republic without being democratic.
In the US, "republic" has further connotations - for instance of "democratic" for the simple reason that USA is a democratic republic.
I am not arguing that they are the same at all. While the US constitution speaks of a republic (they had just gotten rid of a king, they were rather keen on the whole "No king, No king, nah nah nah nah nah nah!"-issue), what it sets out to create is a (non-simple) democracy/democratic republic.
I wasn't limiting anything - I just didn't mention them, as they are irrelevant to the matter at hand. Also, I didn't know that :-)