The amazing thing is that I read through this before I realized what it was. As a philosophy major (and a history grad student), I've come across material like this over and over in academic journals.
Re:Punishment
on
Spam Kings
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
In all seriousness, that would be considered cruel and/or unusual punishment by the Supreme Court.
You're right, of course, but sometimes I wonder why some punishments are considered cruel and unusual. Why is corporeal punishment cruel, but solitary confinement and the death penalty are not?
I don't think that the government should try to legislate morality (after all, before you legislate morality, you have the more difficult task of deciding which morality to legislate). But I don't think it is so simple as you put it. The idea is that government has authority in the public sphere, but no authority in the private sphere. This sounds reasonable and may be a great goal, but doesn't work in practice. What happens in public affects people's private lives, and what happens in private affects the public. If Clinton can determine that GTA is damaging to the public welfare of the US, then the government will try to censor it.
I'm not defending censorship or Clinton (or her husband), and I see the irony as clearly as you do. I just don't trust the public/private dichotomy to protect individual rights or civic wellbeing. Rather than just telling government to stay out of our private lives, we need to change the way we think about government and the state. Otherwise, every time it is in the public interest to suspend private rights (e.g. the Patriot Act), individuals will lose out.
That was my experience the first few times I tried reading the series. The first book was great (war, intrigue, villians, you name it) - but books 2-5 seemed boring to me. I first read the series at the age of 15. Maybe I wasn't ready for it.
Then at the age of 25 I picked it up again, and WOW! The rest of the series is every bit as good as the first. Maybe better.
Books 1-3 are basically the story of Paul, and 2-3 are my least favorite in the series (though they are still good). Book 4 happens thousands of years later, and is basically a story in itself (and a stunning story at that). Books 5-6 happen about 1500 years after book 4, and are the third story in the series. 5 and 6 (Heretics and Chapterhouse) may be the best thing Herbert ever wrote. The primary question of the entire series - can humanity survive? - is beautifully worked out in these last two books.
I understand where you're coming from, because I was there. But if you're a fan of literature and good sci fi, I encourage you to give the series another shot.
Besides Asimov and Bradbury, I would have thought for sure that he'd be there. The Dune series (and not just the first book!) is a serious contender for greatest work of SF/Fantasy ever written.
Someone correct me and tell me that I just missed him!
...those are all examples of things that are popular among non-experts. They are popular in popular culture, not with people who know much about computers, music, politics, film, or science.
With PHP, it's a different story. It's not that my wife (non-expert) thinks that PHP is hip and Python is lame. It's that I (expert, used loosly at least) think that PHP is a great way to develop a simple web application.
But you're right, that Fockers movie was f-ing _terrible_.
Looking at SkillMarket, there are far more Perl jobs than PHP (2629 vs 312). Why the discrepancy between SkillMarket and TIOBE?
From TIOBE's ratings explanation: The ratings are based on the world-wide availability of skilled engineers, courses and third party vendors.
It could be: 1. That PHP is more popular outside of the US (and SkillMarket only tracks US jobs). 2. That PHP generates approximately the same number of courses, books, etc. than Perl does. After all, if there are 9x as many Perl jobs as there are PHP jobs, that doesn't mean that there would be 9x as many Perl books or courses as there are PHP books or courses. 3. Perhaps PHP has more of a following among amateurs - hobbyists who build web applications, but don't hold jobs as PHP programmers.
...that PHP is becoming more popular. It is fast, can be developed quickly, uses familiar C style syntax, and was designed from the ground up to be a web language (unlike Perl et al). For about 90% of web applications, PHP is perfect.
What is surprising to me is that PHP has a rating of 9.5%, while Perl has a rating of 7.4% (declining).
Erm... I don't think you understand intelligent design.
That is possible.
Ironically, it doesn't say WHAT the controlling force is, only that some guiding system causes evolution to happen in a particular way (I don't think it's should be called "intelligent" design.
Even if it doesn't say what the controlling force is, it is pretty obvious from the IDers I've read that it is God (and usually the Judeo-Christian God). The entire agenda behind the movement is to (at minimum) debunk the idea that science and an intelligent designer are incompatible, and (at most) to prove that an intelligent designer is required to explain the natural world.
Yes, but where do you get your value that tells you that major disasters are bad?
(You're right, of course, that science gives us much of the information that we use when evaluating these kinds of questions. But _how_ we evaluate them is not a scientific question.)
You're right for the most part, but:...and the people they seem to think are somehow disproving god.
It would be more accurate to say:...and the people who seem to think that they are somehow disproving god.
There are plenty of people, many of whom are very famous, who think that evolution/science disproves the existence of God. ID is right in disagreeing with them. Where ID goes wrong, in my opinion, is to use the "God of the gaps" model to try to prove God. Throughout history, people have used God to explain the unexplainable (e.g. a solar eclipse, gravity, creation). But eventually, science comes along and explains these things, and God is no longer necessary. So this is dangerous territory for theists - if you base your belief in God on one of these gaps, what happens when the gap is filled?
If you're going to believe in God, there are plenty of other reasons to do so. There is no need to claim that the eye was too complex to have been formed by evolution (Michael Behe and ID).
But there is, even if you can't see it with the naked eye (sorry!). Some very specific -- and observable -- things happen to the female body during orgasm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgasm#Female_ejacu la tion
Agreed, for the most part.
Truth is any tool that works better. Scientific truth - that is, truth derived by the scientific method - works best of all, because it fits the physical world so well.
The problem comes when scientists (and others) use scientific tools in the wrong field. Modern science does a spectacular job of showing us the workings of the natural world, but it is utterly useless when it comes to answering questions like: "How should I live?" or "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
...that everything we believe contains an element of ignorance? The idea that there are pure, propositional "facts" that are perfectly true or false ignores three things:
1. The fact that these "facts" are presented in language, which is an inherently ambiguous and imperfect medium.
2. Data is interconnected -- I can never know everything there is to know on a given subject, however large or small; in fact, for everything I know about a given subject, there is likely FAR more that I don't know.
3. Data is interpreted. I never observe anything outside of my own perspective. Just how much this perspective affects the world that I observe is another matter, but there is no question that it does affect it.
This may sound horribly obscure and abstract, and ideas like this are used by PhDs across the world to justify relativism and poor scholarship. But they are useful in keeping one's self humble. Too often, I think, we assume that science is nearing "the end. "Once we find the GUT, we'll REALLY understand how the universe works." "Once we figure out the brain, we'll understand human behavior." It is far more likely that we are now -- and will always be -- barely scratching the surface of the complexity that the world has to offer.
I've found that online discussion forums can help to supplement (but not replace) in-class education. Some people learn better when they are allowed to read, think, and write at their own pace. This could be especially useful in a language class -- just tell the students to talk about movies or sports or politics in the discussion forum.
On the other hand, if students use laptops during class, I'd be wary of offering free WiFi. The internet is great for a lot of things - but it is also a remarkable time-waster and distraction. (And I'm Exhibit A: reading Slashdot at work.)
Product: Various PDF viewers, primarily for Windows
Bugs: One: Acrobat kills Mozilla. Two: Hidden "check for updates?" box locks up IE.
Class of error: Poorly written software
Principle: Simple software shouldn't hog resources or kill other apps.
Discussion: Why is it so hard to write a decent PDF reader? Preview for Mac is fast and doesn't crash anything. And yet Acrobat for Windows (and maybe for Mac--I haven't tried it) is slow, a resource hog, locks up Mozilla/Firefox until the file is done loading, hides its "check for updates" window (without a tab on the XP app bar), and locks up the PDF-viewing window in IE until the "check for updates" box is dealt with.
That's because the US is by far the worst polluter of any country in the world, so would have to cut more to be at a sustainable level.
Wow, I didn't think this would be true -- I supposed that China at least would pollute more than we do. So I did some research, and based on a 2001 EIA study, here are the world's energy-related carbon emissions:
24%: United States 16%: Western Europe 13%: China 12%: Eastern Europe and FSU
5%: Japan 29%: Rest of world
The problem is that if a voting machine is programmed to cheat, it is easy enough to fake a paper receipt. I could cast a vote for A, have the screen verify that I am voting for A, receive a printed receipt that tells me I voted for A, and STILL have that vote count for B within the black box.
The paper trail is a red herring, if you ask me. What is really needed is publicly-available source code that anyone can view.
The Right is fond of saying that the media has a liberal bias, and they are right to a small extent. The media and the entertainment industry (funny how similar those two can be) is slightly left of center on certain social issues. Can you imagine an episode of Friends or Boston Public or 60 minutes concluding that abortion is wrong, or that environmental regulations are too strict?
But the conservative Right is more wrong than right. Media is driven by profit first and foremost, not by some "liberal bias". Gilette and Time Warner and Vivendi would rather see their stock go up than seriously investigate the truth. The truth doesn't necessarily translate into profit, especially when it challenges the status quo.
Mooney's article is dead on. In order to appear balanced--that is, in order to keep viewers/readers/listeners happy--that is, in order to make a profit, the news media cannot come down on one side or the other, when the truth is to the side (and not in the middle).
This is why I actually enjoy getting my news from places like Mother Jones (left) and the National Review (right). Media sources that are ideologically oriented, rather than "balanced", are often able to report arguments or issues that the mainstream media would avoid.
Slashdot Mirror
http://www.elsewhere.org/cgi-bin/postmodern/ - make sure you read to the bottom.
The amazing thing is that I read through this before I realized what it was. As a philosophy major (and a history grad student), I've come across material like this over and over in academic journals.
In all seriousness, that would be considered cruel and/or unusual punishment by the Supreme Court.
You're right, of course, but sometimes I wonder why some punishments are considered cruel and unusual. Why is corporeal punishment cruel, but solitary confinement and the death penalty are not?
Anyone else think the best solution to spam is to bring back the stocks?
No really, I'm serious.
I don't think that the government should try to legislate morality (after all, before you legislate morality, you have the more difficult task of deciding which morality to legislate). But I don't think it is so simple as you put it. The idea is that government has authority in the public sphere, but no authority in the private sphere. This sounds reasonable and may be a great goal, but doesn't work in practice. What happens in public affects people's private lives, and what happens in private affects the public. If Clinton can determine that GTA is damaging to the public welfare of the US, then the government will try to censor it.
I'm not defending censorship or Clinton (or her husband), and I see the irony as clearly as you do. I just don't trust the public/private dichotomy to protect individual rights or civic wellbeing. Rather than just telling government to stay out of our private lives, we need to change the way we think about government and the state. Otherwise, every time it is in the public interest to suspend private rights (e.g. the Patriot Act), individuals will lose out.
That was my experience the first few times I tried reading the series. The first book was great (war, intrigue, villians, you name it) - but books 2-5 seemed boring to me. I first read the series at the age of 15. Maybe I wasn't ready for it.
Then at the age of 25 I picked it up again, and WOW! The rest of the series is every bit as good as the first. Maybe better.
Books 1-3 are basically the story of Paul, and 2-3 are my least favorite in the series (though they are still good). Book 4 happens thousands of years later, and is basically a story in itself (and a stunning story at that). Books 5-6 happen about 1500 years after book 4, and are the third story in the series. 5 and 6 (Heretics and Chapterhouse) may be the best thing Herbert ever wrote. The primary question of the entire series - can humanity survive? - is beautifully worked out in these last two books.
I understand where you're coming from, because I was there. But if you're a fan of literature and good sci fi, I encourage you to give the series another shot.
Besides Asimov and Bradbury, I would have thought for sure that he'd be there. The Dune series (and not just the first book!) is a serious contender for greatest work of SF/Fantasy ever written.
Someone correct me and tell me that I just missed him!
...those are all examples of things that are popular among non-experts. They are popular in popular culture, not with people who know much about computers, music, politics, film, or science.
With PHP, it's a different story. It's not that my wife (non-expert) thinks that PHP is hip and Python is lame. It's that I (expert, used loosly at least) think that PHP is a great way to develop a simple web application.
But you're right, that Fockers movie was f-ing _terrible_.
Looking at SkillMarket, there are far more Perl jobs than PHP (2629 vs 312). Why the discrepancy between SkillMarket and TIOBE?
From TIOBE's ratings explanation:
The ratings are based on the world-wide availability of skilled engineers, courses and third party vendors.
It could be:
1. That PHP is more popular outside of the US (and SkillMarket only tracks US jobs).
2. That PHP generates approximately the same number of courses, books, etc. than Perl does. After all, if there are 9x as many Perl jobs as there are PHP jobs, that doesn't mean that there would be 9x as many Perl books or courses as there are PHP books or courses.
3. Perhaps PHP has more of a following among amateurs - hobbyists who build web applications, but don't hold jobs as PHP programmers.
...that PHP is becoming more popular. It is fast, can be developed quickly, uses familiar C style syntax, and was designed from the ground up to be a web language (unlike Perl et al). For about 90% of web applications, PHP is perfect.
What is surprising to me is that PHP has a rating of 9.5%, while Perl has a rating of 7.4% (declining).
Erm... I don't think you understand intelligent design.
That is possible.
Ironically, it doesn't say WHAT the controlling force is, only that some guiding system causes evolution to happen in a particular way (I don't think it's should be called "intelligent" design.
Even if it doesn't say what the controlling force is, it is pretty obvious from the IDers I've read that it is God (and usually the Judeo-Christian God). The entire agenda behind the movement is to (at minimum) debunk the idea that science and an intelligent designer are incompatible, and (at most) to prove that an intelligent designer is required to explain the natural world.
Am I wrong?
Yes, but where do you get your value that tells you that major disasters are bad?
(You're right, of course, that science gives us much of the information that we use when evaluating these kinds of questions. But _how_ we evaluate them is not a scientific question.)
You're right for the most part, but: ...and the people they seem to think are somehow disproving god.
...and the people who seem to think that they are somehow disproving god.
It would be more accurate to say:
There are plenty of people, many of whom are very famous, who think that evolution/science disproves the existence of God. ID is right in disagreeing with them. Where ID goes wrong, in my opinion, is to use the "God of the gaps" model to try to prove God. Throughout history, people have used God to explain the unexplainable (e.g. a solar eclipse, gravity, creation). But eventually, science comes along and explains these things, and God is no longer necessary. So this is dangerous territory for theists - if you base your belief in God on one of these gaps, what happens when the gap is filled?
If you're going to believe in God, there are plenty of other reasons to do so. There is no need to claim that the eye was too complex to have been formed by evolution (Michael Behe and ID).
But some people forget this, and use the language of science to answer questions of religion or philosophy (or vice versa).
But there is, even if you can't see it with the naked eye (sorry!). Some very specific -- and observable -- things happen to the female body during orgasm.
u la tion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgasm#Female_ejac
Agreed, for the most part. Truth is any tool that works better. Scientific truth - that is, truth derived by the scientific method - works best of all, because it fits the physical world so well. The problem comes when scientists (and others) use scientific tools in the wrong field. Modern science does a spectacular job of showing us the workings of the natural world, but it is utterly useless when it comes to answering questions like: "How should I live?" or "Why is there something rather than nothing?"
...that everything we believe contains an element of ignorance? The idea that there are pure, propositional "facts" that are perfectly true or false ignores three things:
1. The fact that these "facts" are presented in language, which is an inherently ambiguous and imperfect medium.
2. Data is interconnected -- I can never know everything there is to know on a given subject, however large or small; in fact, for everything I know about a given subject, there is likely FAR more that I don't know.
3. Data is interpreted. I never observe anything outside of my own perspective. Just how much this perspective affects the world that I observe is another matter, but there is no question that it does affect it.
This may sound horribly obscure and abstract, and ideas like this are used by PhDs across the world to justify relativism and poor scholarship. But they are useful in keeping one's self humble. Too often, I think, we assume that science is nearing "the end. "Once we find the GUT, we'll REALLY understand how the universe works." "Once we figure out the brain, we'll understand human behavior." It is far more likely that we are now -- and will always be -- barely scratching the surface of the complexity that the world has to offer.
I've found that online discussion forums can help to supplement (but not replace) in-class education. Some people learn better when they are allowed to read, think, and write at their own pace. This could be especially useful in a language class -- just tell the students to talk about movies or sports or politics in the discussion forum.
On the other hand, if students use laptops during class, I'd be wary of offering free WiFi. The internet is great for a lot of things - but it is also a remarkable time-waster and distraction. (And I'm Exhibit A: reading Slashdot at work.)
Bug name: PDF
Duration: 10+?
Supplier: Adobe et al
Alias: Why-is-it-so-hard-to-write-decent-software?
Product: Various PDF viewers, primarily for Windows
Bugs: One: Acrobat kills Mozilla. Two: Hidden "check for updates?" box locks up IE.
Class of error: Poorly written software
Principle: Simple software shouldn't hog resources or kill other apps.
Discussion:
Why is it so hard to write a decent PDF reader? Preview for Mac is fast and doesn't crash anything. And yet Acrobat for Windows (and maybe for Mac--I haven't tried it) is slow, a resource hog, locks up Mozilla/Firefox until the file is done loading, hides its "check for updates" window (without a tab on the XP app bar), and locks up the PDF-viewing window in IE until the "check for updates" box is dealt with.
83 cell phones have exploded or caught fire--but there are millions that haven't, so it is not a big deal.
Hmmm... How well did that logic work against Ephedra or Firestone Wilderness AT tires?
I know people who still use NS4.
I think it's time for an intervention.
That's because the US is by far the worst polluter of any country in the world, so would have to cut more to be at a sustainable level.
a env.html
Wow, I didn't think this would be true -- I supposed that China at least would pollute more than we do. So I did some research, and based on a 2001 EIA study, here are the world's energy-related carbon emissions:
24%: United States
16%: Western Europe
13%: China
12%: Eastern Europe and FSU
5%: Japan
29%: Rest of world
Details:
http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/chin
The problem is that if a voting machine is programmed to cheat, it is easy enough to fake a paper receipt. I could cast a vote for A, have the screen verify that I am voting for A, receive a printed receipt that tells me I voted for A, and STILL have that vote count for B within the black box.
The paper trail is a red herring, if you ask me. What is really needed is publicly-available source code that anyone can view.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
He who can destroy a thing, can control a thing.
He who controls the spice... Oh, wait.
He made himself look like ass who knew everything.
Only to you, apparently, since most people are applauding him.
The Right is fond of saying that the media has a liberal bias, and they are right to a small extent. The media and the entertainment industry (funny how similar those two can be) is slightly left of center on certain social issues. Can you imagine an episode of Friends or Boston Public or 60 minutes concluding that abortion is wrong, or that environmental regulations are too strict?
But the conservative Right is more wrong than right. Media is driven by profit first and foremost, not by some "liberal bias". Gilette and Time Warner and Vivendi would rather see their stock go up than seriously investigate the truth. The truth doesn't necessarily translate into profit, especially when it challenges the status quo.
Mooney's article is dead on. In order to appear balanced--that is, in order to keep viewers/readers/listeners happy--that is, in order to make a profit, the news media cannot come down on one side or the other, when the truth is to the side (and not in the middle).
This is why I actually enjoy getting my news from places like Mother Jones (left) and the National Review (right). Media sources that are ideologically oriented, rather than "balanced", are often able to report arguments or issues that the mainstream media would avoid.