"'a surprising concurrence of events, perceived as meaningfully related, with no apparent causal connection.' In other words, pure happenstance. Yet by merely noticing a coincidence, we elevate it to something that transcends its definition as pure chance. We are discomforted by the idea of a random universe. Like Mel Gibson's character Graham Hess in M. Night Shyamalan's new movie ''Signs,'' we want to feel that our lives are governed by a grand plan."
The definition of coincidence (which starts the quote above) says "no APPARENT connection" (my emphasis). The author is factually incorrect, by their own definition, in saying that "no apparent connection" equals "pure happenstance" (the definition of happenstance is, by the way, "A chance circumstance").
The author then bounces from this shaky springboard into a big leap indeed: the assertion that a person who thinks that something without an "apparent" connection might have a hidden of obfuscated connection is equal to "want(ing) to feel that (their) lives are governed by a grand plan." The rest of the article merely strives to make the reader feel better about this supposed personal weakness.
The article, then, is essentially designed to make the reader feel foolish for considering the possibility of a connection, and in fact suggests that those who consider the possibility of a connection are merely trying to make themselves seem more important to themselves than they are.
This is inappropriate, for a simple reason embodied in the hackneyed phrase "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you".
The reason is this: Cause and Effect is a real, everyday occurance. The absence of immediate and irrefutable proof is not cause for dismissal of the possibily of correlation (and potentially causation). If it were, police detectives wouldn't bother investigating crimes -- the lack of immediate and irrefutable proof would be sufficient to rule out guilt.
Instead, I have found (in my own limited life experience) that those who avoid arguments against the allegation, and instead present arguments against he/she making the allegation (as this author is doing), are unable to refute the allegation. Instead, I have found that this inability generally stems from their being:
(a) convinced that they know more than the person with the opposing viewpoint (the closeminded and/or cynical)
(b) lacking sufficient knowledge to refute the allegation, but unable to stay uninvolved (the ignorant and/or nosy) or
(c) aware that the allegation is potentially/partially/completely correct yet is in a position where they must refute the allegation (the guilty and/or the paid off).
Please note that my argument above does not prove that there IS a connection, any more than the article in question proves that there is NOT. My point is simply that the author is either cynical, close-minded, ignorant, nosy, guilty or paid off, and can thusly be safely ignored by intelligent people who are considering the issue for themselves.
Libraries are not as popular as they used to be. If librarians want to keep their libraries open and funded, they need as much traffic as possible to justify their existence.
If people believe their privacy will be jeopardized by visiting a library, they will stay away from libraries even moreso than they do now. Thus, a pro-privacy stance makes perfect sense from a librarian's perspective, and it is an economically rational position to take.
That isn't to say the librarians don't prefer it that way, of course. If the government said "you only get funding if you invade people's privacy" it would be economically rational to take an anti-privacy stance...but I think some would still fight it.
After all, what good is a library full of books with nobody there to read them?
Assuming this could ever happen, new jobs would be filled by new people to take the place of the old.
I'm talking sysadmins, 3D modelers, network specialists, project managers (to manage concurrent work on multiple portions of the movie at once to reduce overall production time), and so on. Some people wouldn't go, like voice talent and those who record the audio and write/perform the score.
Oh, and you'll still need caterers. The need for cast and crew (voice talent, at least) to eat will never be replaced by computers.
You seem confident that overall cost savings would result from your approach.
Do you suppose there would be enough money left to spec out RAID support on the motherboards, and double up on everyone's drives? (I'm talking RAID 1 here, by the way).
After all, with the exception of laptop computers, the thing that breaks not-quite-as-often as Windows itself are the hard drives -- seems like, Dell or no dell, RAID support on workstations is a boon. Being able to swap a dead drive out during the evening after a failure, without the workstation operator noticing anything was wrong during the day, rocks.
And the only way I know of (please correct me if I'm wrong) to get hardware RAID (please note I said hardware, not software) is by spec'ing a Dell (or equivalent) server as a workstation...or building your own.
If you wanted to "warn the world NOW" (emphasis added) without revealing the discovery until a few years later, would anyone take you seriously?
For example:
"I have discovered a source of energy that does not create light or heat, is infinitely renewable, and costs less per Joule than a stick of gum to produce. I can't tell you what it is for a few years, but I CAN tell you that it will throw everything into disarray (socially and economically)...you'd better start preparing."
The reaction of the world at large could be summed up in a single word: "Crackpot".
Nobody would take you seriously until you revealed the device (and thus "proved" your crackpot theory) -- then all hell would break loose as the energy mogul equivalent of the RIAA tried you keep people from sharing this cheap energy source with heavy political donations and an "energy bandit" media campaign.
Slashdot Mirror
From the article:
"'a surprising concurrence of events, perceived as meaningfully related, with no apparent causal connection.' In other words, pure happenstance. Yet by merely noticing a coincidence, we elevate it to something that transcends its definition as pure chance. We are discomforted by the idea of a random universe. Like Mel Gibson's character Graham Hess in M. Night Shyamalan's new movie ''Signs,'' we want to feel that our lives are governed by a grand plan."
The definition of coincidence (which starts the quote above) says "no APPARENT connection" (my emphasis). The author is factually incorrect, by their own definition, in saying that "no apparent connection" equals "pure happenstance" (the definition of happenstance is, by the way, "A chance circumstance").
The author then bounces from this shaky springboard into a big leap indeed: the assertion that a person who thinks that something without an "apparent" connection might have a hidden of obfuscated connection is equal to "want(ing) to feel that (their) lives are governed by a grand plan." The rest of the article merely strives to make the reader feel better about this supposed personal weakness.
The article, then, is essentially designed to make the reader feel foolish for considering the possibility of a connection, and in fact suggests that those who consider the possibility of a connection are merely trying to make themselves seem more important to themselves than they are.
This is inappropriate, for a simple reason embodied in the hackneyed phrase "Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you". The reason is this: Cause and Effect is a real, everyday occurance. The absence of immediate and irrefutable proof is not cause for dismissal of the possibily of correlation (and potentially causation). If it were, police detectives wouldn't bother investigating crimes -- the lack of immediate and irrefutable proof would be sufficient to rule out guilt.
Instead, I have found (in my own limited life experience) that those who avoid arguments against the allegation, and instead present arguments against he/she making the allegation (as this author is doing), are unable to refute the allegation. Instead, I have found that this inability generally stems from their being:
(a) convinced that they know more than the person with the opposing viewpoint (the closeminded and/or cynical)
(b) lacking sufficient knowledge to refute the allegation, but unable to stay uninvolved (the ignorant and/or nosy) or
(c) aware that the allegation is potentially/partially/completely correct yet is in a position where they must refute the allegation (the guilty and/or the paid off).
Please note that my argument above does not prove that there IS a connection, any more than the article in question proves that there is NOT. My point is simply that the author is either cynical, close-minded, ignorant, nosy, guilty or paid off, and can thusly be safely ignored by intelligent people who are considering the issue for themselves.
Libraries are not as popular as they used to be. If librarians want to keep their libraries open and funded, they need as much traffic as possible to justify their existence.
;)
If people believe their privacy will be jeopardized by visiting a library, they will stay away from libraries even moreso than they do now. Thus, a pro-privacy stance makes perfect sense from a librarian's perspective, and it is an economically rational position to take.
That isn't to say the librarians don't prefer it that way, of course. If the government said "you only get funding if you invade people's privacy" it would be economically rational to take an anti-privacy stance...but I think some would still fight it.
After all, what good is a library full of books with nobody there to read them?
At least it would be quiet.
Assuming this could ever happen, new jobs would be filled by new people to take the place of the old.
I'm talking sysadmins, 3D modelers, network specialists, project managers (to manage concurrent work on multiple portions of the movie at once to reduce overall production time), and so on. Some people wouldn't go, like voice talent and those who record the audio and write/perform the score.
Oh, and you'll still need caterers. The need for cast and crew (voice talent, at least) to eat will never be replaced by computers.
You seem confident that overall cost savings would result from your approach.
Do you suppose there would be enough money left to spec out RAID support on the motherboards, and double up on everyone's drives? (I'm talking RAID 1 here, by the way).
After all, with the exception of laptop computers, the thing that breaks not-quite-as-often as Windows itself are the hard drives -- seems like, Dell or no dell, RAID support on workstations is a boon. Being able to swap a dead drive out during the evening after a failure, without the workstation operator noticing anything was wrong during the day, rocks.
And the only way I know of (please correct me if I'm wrong) to get hardware RAID (please note I said hardware, not software) is by spec'ing a Dell (or equivalent) server as a workstation...or building your own.
What do you think?
If you wanted to "warn the world NOW" (emphasis added) without revealing the discovery until a few years later, would anyone take you seriously?
For example:
"I have discovered a source of energy that does not create light or heat, is infinitely renewable, and costs less per Joule than a stick of gum to produce. I can't tell you what it is for a few years, but I CAN tell you that it will throw everything into disarray (socially and economically)...you'd better start preparing."
The reaction of the world at large could be summed up in a single word: "Crackpot".
Nobody would take you seriously until you revealed the device (and thus "proved" your crackpot theory) -- then all hell would break loose as the energy mogul equivalent of the RIAA tried you keep people from sharing this cheap energy source with heavy political donations and an "energy bandit" media campaign.