As a programmer who was a philosophy major in college I am so happy to finally see the connection made by others (even if at such a superficial and shallow level).
In all seriousness, however, philosophy and programming are amazingly similar. They each are about breaking down complex thoughts into atomic, logical pieces. The origin of computer theory is in philosophy.
And for all of you philosophy majors who are sick of being asked what you are going to do with a philosophy degree (as I was).... tell them you will be a computer programmer!
Hmmm.. I can understand an argument as to why the right to bear arms is a fundamental civil right, but there are many very good arguments as to why it isn't. I can see how you might not be swayed by them; but to deny that they exist is a bit intellectually dishonest.
Do you think it is a fundamental right that I can possess, for example, a bomb large enough to destroy the city I live in? I can't imagine you think that... if you can accept that it is not a fundamental right to own that sort of weapon, it is only a matter of degree to argue that a fully automatic weapon, say, can be banned without violating civil rights.
You might disagree with the argument, but you have to at least see how someone could disagree with your assessment.
I think this research is meant to show a couple of things of import that you are seeming to gloss over in your criticism.
For one, the difference between a lazy teenager ignoring what their parents told them and a toddler doing the same thing is that a lazy teenager IS choosing to ignore their parents - there is nothing different going on in their brains, they just don't want to do what they are told.
A toddler, on the other hand, literally CAN'T do what they are told in certain instances, because they don't have the same thought process that adults have (which is what this research is trying to show). It's not that they are choosing to ignore their parents, they just don't have the reasoning capability at that age to comprehend complex conditional statements like "When I tell you it is cold outside get a jacket"
I think the point of the research is that many parents expect things from their very young children that are just not possible. They think their kid is being stubborn or misbehaving when it is just developmental. So many parents get frustrated and angry at their child when they should just realize that they just have to wait for the kid to grow up a bit.
Damn it, my personal windows filter must have prevented me from seeing that it was a windows mobile phone. Although it still seems like too much work to have to enter a barcode, I can at least understand now the motivation behind not wanting to enter the name of the movie.
Don't all the Android phones have physical qwerty keyboards? I would think typing a movie name would be easier, because you would have to lift up the movie, look at the barcode while typing it in and checking to make sure you got it exactly right. The name of the movie could just be remembered for a second while you type it in.
You could also enter the name of the movie into your phone, and poof. Done.
I would think typing the name of the movie would be easier than typing a barcode. A barcode is a random string of at least 11 digits or so, where a movie name should be fairly easy to hold in your head while you type it into your phone.
Umm, you would rather enter the barcode manually to search for a movie torrent in an app than to enter the name of the movie in a search? May I ask why? Is there something I am missing?
I have been programming since I was 8 years old (made a kick ass dog racing game in 2nd grade), but decided to be a philosophy major at UCLA instead of a CS major. The best decision I ever made. My philosophy training (I specialized in formal logic theory) has helped my programming more than any CS class would have. A good programmer needs to be able to teach themselves, or they will be obsolete almost immediately. Learning how to use logic and transform abstract human concepts into a formal logic representation is the true base skill for programmers.
It worked out for me.... 4 years removed from graduation, I have a great programming job that I love, making excellent money, and happy as can be.
It looks like they are slightly different in the hardware department as well. For one, there are 2 different sizes (2G and 4G), and the high end one looks like it has access information for 10,000 hot spots built in (although I am doubtful about how useful those would be). It actually doesn't appear that there is any difference in the desktop software, just on the card and for external services (the geotagging thing on the high end one).
Of course, they probably will still sue, because you could probably compete with a third party geotagging service or something.
You didn't click on any of those links did you? Because if you had, you would be the one being rounded up and killed.
Or think about this.. I set up a tiny url that links to one of those sites.... you click on it not knowing where it leads...... you get arrested for child porn...
So before you would turn in an online rental and get a new in-store rental AND be sent a new online rental DVD as well? So lets say I had a 2 at a time plan... I turn in one, get an in-store rental and a new online one sent as well.. I then turn in my new online one and get another in-store rental and have a new online one sent.. so I now have 2 in-store rentals and 2 online.. rinse and repeat and I can have infinite in-store rentals?
This makes no sense. It also makes no sense to expect this. Please tell me I am missing something.
It sounds like quite a pain to use it on a Mac though... no native support, and the workaround (http://forums.sandisk.com/sansa/board/message?board.id=clip&message.id=3744) seems like quite a bit of work to just be able to copy and use playlists. You have to download a special script to convert iTunes playlists, as well as a number of other steps. A lot more of a hassle than just plug and sync like the iPods.
If you are willing to go through that much of a workaround to get it to work, then it wouldn't be much more difficult to do something similar to use the iPod without iTunes (http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/managing_your_ipod_without_itunes)
Why are you willing to work so hard to get a Sansa Clip to work outside the 'windows ecosystem', but then say the iPod locks you in when the same amount of work would separate it from the 'iTunes ecosystem'?
I love how the first couple of pictures on the flickr feed are of the bike he crashed on to lose the finger, posted only a couple of months before the accident. Awesome.
While I am not sure if this should be considered libel, I don't think the defense 'well it was true!' always triumphs as a legal defense. What about rights to privacy? Suppose the email had disclosed that Noonan had left his job because he had been diagnosed with cancer.. while this statement might be true, doesn't he have a right to keep some information about himself private?
Slashdot users seem to argue for privacy most of the time... they get upset with companies that share information, but never say "Well I guess it is ok if company A shares my surfing habits with company B, because after all they are my TRUE surfing habits"
While I know this is not the same issues, they seem somewhat related to me. Although on one part I agree completely... this should not be a libel case; it should be a employee privacy violation case instead.
Totally off topic and not really that important but.... only 14 states ban convicted felons from ever voting again. Vermont and Maine even allow current prisoners to vote.
Just thought you might like to know, not all states ban felons from voting for life.
I do agree with both things you assumed I would agree with. I would also be interested to read one of those studies suggesting convicted criminals fear armed victims. While it is very likely true that criminals fear victims being able to resist, I wonder how much that fear factors in to their decision to commit a violent crime. I would also be interested to see if there are any studies linking stricter gun control laws with an increase in violent crime in the area.
I would like to note as well that I am not an anti-gun zealot, and do not want to repeal the second amendment nor outlaw guns. I just find the argument that more guns equals more safety to be a poor one and not the best defense of the right to bear arms.
To point out another flaw in your argument I missed the first time is that your logic rests on the assumption that a criminal who fears that his victim is armed would be less likely to commit the crime in the first place. Wouldn't the criminal just as likely make a preemptive strike or make sure they are better armed?
For example, suppose you have a home invasion robber in the US and one in the UK. The UK criminal can safely assume his victim is unarmed. If he encounters the home owner while robbing him, he figures he can run away. The US criminal knows his victim may be armed, so he makes sure he has a gun and if he encounters the homeowner he will shoot first because he doesn't want to let the homeowner shoot him before he has a chance. He may even decide to make the fear moot and kill the homeowner in his bed before he has a chance to wake up and arm himself.
While this argument makes a lot of assumptions, it seems just as likely as the criminal deciding to abandon the life of crime because his victim might be armed. In a society where everyone is armed, everyday encounters become more ominous.. everyone is on edge because anyone can kill anyone else at any time. The rational response in a situation like this is to make sure that if a shootout is going to happen, you better be the one to shoot first. This guy trying to pick a fight with me at a bar has a gun... while he probably only wants to fistfight, you never know.. better pull that gun first. The game theory pushes the threshold for deadly violence much lower.
This of course is a simplified argument, but so is yours that more guns means criminals are afraid and commit less crimes. I think the rational approach is the one we take (mostly) in the US... restrict who can own guns, where they can carry them, and what types of weapons they can own. Not perfect, but as fair as we have come up with so far.
Yes.. or are you trying to say the violent crime rate is higher in the UK than in the US?
While a lower violent crime rate in the UK is not an argument saying that outlawing guns lowers violent crime, I think it is a fairly strong argument that allowing everyone to own guns doesn't necessarily lower it either.
I think your idea shows a common misconception about violent crime. For example, a lot of violent crime occurs between gang members; the fact that the gang members they commit violence against also have weapons does not seem to deter them from committing the violence against each other. Secondly, most other forms of violent crime is not against strangers (check out http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/), but against people who know each other (family especially)... you would be hard pressed to argue that this violence would be prevented if everyone owned weapons. The biggest argument against your reasoning, however, is your implied assumption that criminals use game theory to decide if it is rationally beneficial to commit their crime.. I think it is a stretch to suggest everyday law abiding people apply this sort of rationality to their actions, let alone violent criminals who clearly demonstrate they do not act rationally.
Really? The very second? I didn't realize that 50% is some sort of magic virus number that you have to pass before you get viruses. So to solve the problem of viruses, all we have to do is make sure that no operating system has over 50% market share? Brilliant!
umm isn't this exactly what they are doing? They are setting up their own app store that will sell apps that will work only on jailbroken phones... exactly what you suggest they do.
They aren't demanding Apple change anything, only that Apple not sue them for setting up this alternative app store for jailbroken phones.
Slashdot Mirror
As a programmer who was a philosophy major in college I am so happy to finally see the connection made by others (even if at such a superficial and shallow level).
In all seriousness, however, philosophy and programming are amazingly similar. They each are about breaking down complex thoughts into atomic, logical pieces. The origin of computer theory is in philosophy.
And for all of you philosophy majors who are sick of being asked what you are going to do with a philosophy degree (as I was).... tell them you will be a computer programmer!
This ad has John Wooden in it. It is awesome.
Way to go Netbook! Getting to home base 96% of the time would make any frat boy proud.
Hmmm.. I can understand an argument as to why the right to bear arms is a fundamental civil right, but there are many very good arguments as to why it isn't. I can see how you might not be swayed by them; but to deny that they exist is a bit intellectually dishonest.
Do you think it is a fundamental right that I can possess, for example, a bomb large enough to destroy the city I live in? I can't imagine you think that... if you can accept that it is not a fundamental right to own that sort of weapon, it is only a matter of degree to argue that a fully automatic weapon, say, can be banned without violating civil rights.
You might disagree with the argument, but you have to at least see how someone could disagree with your assessment.
I work for the news wire AFP, and we have an agreement with Google to use our news.. and they DO pay us... http://searchengineland.com/afp-google-settle-over-google-news-copyright-case-10926
So basically your kid is like a programming language with poor looping support
I think this research is meant to show a couple of things of import that you are seeming to gloss over in your criticism.
For one, the difference between a lazy teenager ignoring what their parents told them and a toddler doing the same thing is that a lazy teenager IS choosing to ignore their parents - there is nothing different going on in their brains, they just don't want to do what they are told.
A toddler, on the other hand, literally CAN'T do what they are told in certain instances, because they don't have the same thought process that adults have (which is what this research is trying to show). It's not that they are choosing to ignore their parents, they just don't have the reasoning capability at that age to comprehend complex conditional statements like "When I tell you it is cold outside get a jacket"
I think the point of the research is that many parents expect things from their very young children that are just not possible. They think their kid is being stubborn or misbehaving when it is just developmental. So many parents get frustrated and angry at their child when they should just realize that they just have to wait for the kid to grow up a bit.
Damn it, my personal windows filter must have prevented me from seeing that it was a windows mobile phone. Although it still seems like too much work to have to enter a barcode, I can at least understand now the motivation behind not wanting to enter the name of the movie.
Don't all the Android phones have physical qwerty keyboards? I would think typing a movie name would be easier, because you would have to lift up the movie, look at the barcode while typing it in and checking to make sure you got it exactly right. The name of the movie could just be remembered for a second while you type it in.
You could also enter the name of the movie into your phone, and poof. Done.
I would think typing the name of the movie would be easier than typing a barcode. A barcode is a random string of at least 11 digits or so, where a movie name should be fairly easy to hold in your head while you type it into your phone.
Umm, you would rather enter the barcode manually to search for a movie torrent in an app than to enter the name of the movie in a search? May I ask why? Is there something I am missing?
I have been programming since I was 8 years old (made a kick ass dog racing game in 2nd grade), but decided to be a philosophy major at UCLA instead of a CS major. The best decision I ever made. My philosophy training (I specialized in formal logic theory) has helped my programming more than any CS class would have. A good programmer needs to be able to teach themselves, or they will be obsolete almost immediately. Learning how to use logic and transform abstract human concepts into a formal logic representation is the true base skill for programmers.
It worked out for me.... 4 years removed from graduation, I have a great programming job that I love, making excellent money, and happy as can be.
It looks like they are slightly different in the hardware department as well. For one, there are 2 different sizes (2G and 4G), and the high end one looks like it has access information for 10,000 hot spots built in (although I am doubtful about how useful those would be). It actually doesn't appear that there is any difference in the desktop software, just on the card and for external services (the geotagging thing on the high end one).
Of course, they probably will still sue, because you could probably compete with a third party geotagging service or something.
You didn't click on any of those links did you? Because if you had, you would be the one being rounded up and killed.
Or think about this.. I set up a tiny url that links to one of those sites.... you click on it not knowing where it leads...... you get arrested for child porn...
I hate to say this, but it probably depends on how big your rockets are.......
Isn't the purpose of the internet to AVOID having to talk to people?
So before you would turn in an online rental and get a new in-store rental AND be sent a new online rental DVD as well? So lets say I had a 2 at a time plan... I turn in one, get an in-store rental and a new online one sent as well.. I then turn in my new online one and get another in-store rental and have a new online one sent.. so I now have 2 in-store rentals and 2 online.. rinse and repeat and I can have infinite in-store rentals?
This makes no sense. It also makes no sense to expect this. Please tell me I am missing something.
It sounds like quite a pain to use it on a Mac though... no native support, and the workaround (http://forums.sandisk.com/sansa/board/message?board.id=clip&message.id=3744) seems like quite a bit of work to just be able to copy and use playlists. You have to download a special script to convert iTunes playlists, as well as a number of other steps. A lot more of a hassle than just plug and sync like the iPods.
If you are willing to go through that much of a workaround to get it to work, then it wouldn't be much more difficult to do something similar to use the iPod without iTunes (http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/articles/managing_your_ipod_without_itunes)
Why are you willing to work so hard to get a Sansa Clip to work outside the 'windows ecosystem', but then say the iPod locks you in when the same amount of work would separate it from the 'iTunes ecosystem'?
I love how the first couple of pictures on the flickr feed are of the bike he crashed on to lose the finger, posted only a couple of months before the accident. Awesome.
While I am not sure if this should be considered libel, I don't think the defense 'well it was true!' always triumphs as a legal defense. What about rights to privacy? Suppose the email had disclosed that Noonan had left his job because he had been diagnosed with cancer.. while this statement might be true, doesn't he have a right to keep some information about himself private?
Slashdot users seem to argue for privacy most of the time... they get upset with companies that share information, but never say "Well I guess it is ok if company A shares my surfing habits with company B, because after all they are my TRUE surfing habits"
While I know this is not the same issues, they seem somewhat related to me. Although on one part I agree completely... this should not be a libel case; it should be a employee privacy violation case instead.
Totally off topic and not really that important but.... only 14 states ban convicted felons from ever voting again. Vermont and Maine even allow current prisoners to vote.
Just thought you might like to know, not all states ban felons from voting for life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_rights_in_the_United_States#Felons
I do agree with both things you assumed I would agree with. I would also be interested to read one of those studies suggesting convicted criminals fear armed victims. While it is very likely true that criminals fear victims being able to resist, I wonder how much that fear factors in to their decision to commit a violent crime. I would also be interested to see if there are any studies linking stricter gun control laws with an increase in violent crime in the area.
I would like to note as well that I am not an anti-gun zealot, and do not want to repeal the second amendment nor outlaw guns. I just find the argument that more guns equals more safety to be a poor one and not the best defense of the right to bear arms.
To point out another flaw in your argument I missed the first time is that your logic rests on the assumption that a criminal who fears that his victim is armed would be less likely to commit the crime in the first place. Wouldn't the criminal just as likely make a preemptive strike or make sure they are better armed?
For example, suppose you have a home invasion robber in the US and one in the UK. The UK criminal can safely assume his victim is unarmed. If he encounters the home owner while robbing him, he figures he can run away. The US criminal knows his victim may be armed, so he makes sure he has a gun and if he encounters the homeowner he will shoot first because he doesn't want to let the homeowner shoot him before he has a chance. He may even decide to make the fear moot and kill the homeowner in his bed before he has a chance to wake up and arm himself.
While this argument makes a lot of assumptions, it seems just as likely as the criminal deciding to abandon the life of crime because his victim might be armed. In a society where everyone is armed, everyday encounters become more ominous.. everyone is on edge because anyone can kill anyone else at any time. The rational response in a situation like this is to make sure that if a shootout is going to happen, you better be the one to shoot first. This guy trying to pick a fight with me at a bar has a gun... while he probably only wants to fistfight, you never know.. better pull that gun first. The game theory pushes the threshold for deadly violence much lower.
This of course is a simplified argument, but so is yours that more guns means criminals are afraid and commit less crimes. I think the rational approach is the one we take (mostly) in the US... restrict who can own guns, where they can carry them, and what types of weapons they can own. Not perfect, but as fair as we have come up with so far.
Yes.. or are you trying to say the violent crime rate is higher in the UK than in the US?
While a lower violent crime rate in the UK is not an argument saying that outlawing guns lowers violent crime, I think it is a fairly strong argument that allowing everyone to own guns doesn't necessarily lower it either.
I think your idea shows a common misconception about violent crime. For example, a lot of violent crime occurs between gang members; the fact that the gang members they commit violence against also have weapons does not seem to deter them from committing the violence against each other. Secondly, most other forms of violent crime is not against strangers (check out http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/), but against people who know each other (family especially)... you would be hard pressed to argue that this violence would be prevented if everyone owned weapons. The biggest argument against your reasoning, however, is your implied assumption that criminals use game theory to decide if it is rationally beneficial to commit their crime.. I think it is a stretch to suggest everyday law abiding people apply this sort of rationality to their actions, let alone violent criminals who clearly demonstrate they do not act rationally.
Really? The very second? I didn't realize that 50% is some sort of magic virus number that you have to pass before you get viruses. So to solve the problem of viruses, all we have to do is make sure that no operating system has over 50% market share? Brilliant!
umm isn't this exactly what they are doing? They are setting up their own app store that will sell apps that will work only on jailbroken phones... exactly what you suggest they do.
They aren't demanding Apple change anything, only that Apple not sue them for setting up this alternative app store for jailbroken phones.