But clearly it is not politically neutral to have Taiwan excluded from the UN. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong, but it's certainly not neutral.
My thought when I read that, too. How is it politically neutral to the controversy to use the naming convention adopted by a political body where China has a large say and Taiwan has no say?
If you want to be neutral, include both names and note that it's in dispute.
It is apparently human nature to think the youth are being unusually rebellious (and to want to control them) and to think that morals are in decline (and want to control morality to conform to your own view of what it should be).
And also to think that you and your friends weren't that rebellious when you were young.
I think Plato did history a disservice in his fictional representation of Socrates. Given you're posts I think you're better read in terms of Plato than I am (not a difficult feat);) so I'll defer to your characterization.
Well, if you notice, I keep referring to Socrates as a "character". There was a real guy, of course, but we don't really have much of anything about the real guy. All we have are some contemporaries who've written Socrates into plays as a fictional character (Aristophanes, Plato). Their characterizations of Socrates are different, which leads us, then, to admit that we can speak of Plato's character "Socrates" and Aristophanes character "Socrates", but as you say, we know so very little about the historical Socrates. We also don't have anything in the way of Plato writing "I think this..." or "I think that...", but only dialogues which were, essentially, plays.
So really, I'm only talking here about Plato's character Socrates, who is known to be a bit of a trickster. In fact, a good tip for reading Plato, I think, is whenever Socrates states repeatedly that something is impossible and can't be taken seriously, it's probably the most true thing in the dialogue. However, that's my interpretation from some study, and there are plenty of others who'd disagree.
Plato idolized Socrates, and was using the quote to disassosiate Socrates from a reign of terror that everybody hated. Without knowing your history you seem to interpret it as "ah shucks, even Socrates 2500 years ago could be an old codger!" which isn't at all the case, Plato wasn't one to tell gee-whiz anecdotes.
And yet this quote seems to be from the Republic (I'm not sure about that, though) where Socrates argues, at times, in favor of a fascist state. Most likely, this position's inclusion is a result of there being a general tone of mistrust towards the youth. I don't think that Socrates being "an old codger" is the only conclusion which can be drawn. For example, it might be that young people have been snotty and arrogant for 2500 years. Either way, this worrying about the corruption of the youth is not new, and the idea that young people were always angelic until just recently is a crock.
...That he seems to have adopted the "ideals" of Sparta as the underpinnings for his Utopia is suggestive of someone who subscribes to power as a sort of "Dieu et mon Droit" principle. Personally I find his views repugnant the more so for having read K. Popper's Open Society and It's Enemies...
Not to make a big issue, but Plato is an amazingly witty and sarcastic writer, and his "views" are very unclear. Divining Plato's beliefs from the statements of his characters is pretty unreliable-- particularly when that character is Socrates, who is known to be purposefully misleading. There are plenty of reasons to believe Plato was against the "ideal utopia" as described in the Republic.
My point was, however reprehensible politicians are, the blame is still on us, the voters. If you think the politicians in office are deficient people, I won't disagree, but who put them there? The people. You and me.
"The Greek philosopher Plato studied under Socrates. Plato complained about the youth of the day, also. "What is happening to our young people? They disrespect their elders, they disobey their parents. They ignore the law. They riot in the streets inflamed with wild notions. Their morals are decaying. What is to become of them?"
Where did this quote come from? I'm being a bit picky (and off-topic) here, but I would guess Plato did not "complain about the youth of the day," but rather wrote a character is one of his dialogues (plays) complaining about the youth, and perhaps sarcastically. My guess is that this might be a translation of something Socrates said in the Republic, and misattributed to Plato himself.
Ok, let's blame the politicians. They're obviously shitty people with poor judgement and little moral fortitude. And what kind of moron put obviously shitty people in charge of running our lives?
I wish I had time to search for a quote, but Socrates also bashes poetry and art for being corrupting forces in a couple dialogues (notably the Republic, IIRC). POETRY. Yes, old people are blaming video games for corrupting the youth. A few short years ago, they were blaming music. Elvis used to be evil. Well, thousands of years ago, they were blaming *poetry*! And not Jack Kerouac poetry, but things like the Illiad. You know, that boring stuff that they make you read in school? Hell, Socrates was executed for corrupting the youth with *philosophy*.
Is this a technical appropriation of the word that I'm unaware of? How does a little web diagram mean an "ontology"?
Either way, I don't think I like it. "Ontology" is not the study of things, it's the study of "being". Ask me about the "ontology for iPods" and I won't tell you about Apple and the features of the iPod. If I bother to take you seriously, expect a lengthy metaphysical discussion about material and form, use and knowledge, and probably god (at some point) will be raised as a real issue. Then you'll get some little something about how all that relates to iPods.
Of course, I'm probably way too late for this discussion, as well as failing to be a member of the correct club. But couldn't they have found a word that actually means what they want it to mean?
and hard-ass-incompetent ones (these are those who easily feel threatened and attempt to build turf) will become your tacit enemies.
Yeah... I kind of forgot to mention something about my little theory here: where it will fail. This "taking authority" business can work with normal workers (who aren't really the problem anyway) as well as mere bureaucrats. Even the really incompetent people who might get annoyed and angry, you won't have to worry about them if they're very incompetent (because they're too incompetent to do anything about it). However, you will run across people who are snotty and anti-authority who will be prone to do the exact opposite of whatever you say. You'll also run into people who are dumb and ambitious, those who hate successful people and who will blame their lack of success on your success.
And occasionally, every once in a while, you'll run up against someone who sees straight through your little charade. That, however, is exceedingly rare. Plus, if you're really doing a good job at the "taking authority" thing, and you're doing good things with the authority, then the people who understand what you're doing will usually be smart enough to just let you keep doing it.
Damn. Just goes to show, always preview. Should read:
In line with these:
4) Intimidate.
The worst bureaucrats are often cowards. It's kind of like the old idea that if you want to get rid of a bully, punch him once in the nose. Now, it'll take more finesse than a punch in the nose, but find ways to establish yourself as an authority, and the merely bureaucratic will become afraid to cross you. and the corollary of that is:
5) Train others to take orders.
Get used to telling them, in no uncertain terms, what you need for things. Start out making these seem like requests. Slowly shift those requests into technical issues of "If you want A, you'll have to give me B." Make this a purely technical issue, i.e. "I can't give you A without B," as opposed to "I won't give you A without B." Give full explanations as to why, and make sure you're right. Give them reason to trust you.
Let them learn to trust you to determine for yourself what you need, and once they trust you, make your explanations complex, incomprehensible, and long. Make them bored with your explanations. When you're sure they're bored, start replacing your explanations with "trust me". Eventually, drop the "trust me" and you'll find you're just telling people what to do. This process takes some practice (and good instincts), but if you're careful and you do this right, you can create a situation where you can tell people, "I need you to do C," and they'll do it, [almost] no questions asked.
Remember the Milgram experiment? People respond to authority, and having a corner office or an important title aren't the only ways to get people to view you as an authority. Find ways to get people to listen to you, get people to trust you, keep your head up, appear proud, appear to "know what you're doing", etc. Learn to lead, and people will follow. Yes, you might say that my advice boils down to "beat them at their own game". If you're fighting people who've gained authority through technicalities and fancy titles, you just need to find another way to steal authority for yourself.
In line with these:
4) Intimidate.
The worst bureaucrats are often cowards. It's kind of like the old idea that if you want to get rid of a bully, punch him once in the nose. Now, it'll take more finesse than a punch in the nose, but find ways to establish yourself as an authority, and the merely bureaucratic will become afraid to cross you.
and the corollary of that is:
5) Train others to take orders.
Get used to telling them, in no uncertain terms, what you need for things. Start out making these seem like requests. Slowly shift those requests into technical issues of "If you want A, you'll have to give me B." Make this a purely technical issue, i.e. "I can't give you A without B," as opposed to "I won't give you A without B." Give full explanations as to why, and make sure you're right. Give them reason to trust you. Let them learn to trust you with determinations of what you need, and once they trust you, make your explanations complex, incomprehensible, and long. Make them bored with your explanations. When you're sure they're bored, start replacing your explanations with "trust me". This process takes some practice (and good instincts), but if you're careful and you do this right, you can create a situation where you can tell people, "I need you to do C," and they'll do it, no questions asked.
Remember the Milgram experiment? People respond to authority, and having a corner office or an important title aren't the only ways to get people to view you as an authority. Find ways to get people to listen to you, get people to trust you, keep your head up, appear proud, appear to "know what you're doing", etc. Yes, you might say that my advice boils down to "beat them at their own game". If you're fighting people who've gained authority through technicalities and fancy titles, you just need to find another way to steal authority for yourself.
they will be able to reap money from their labour and continue to provide the service to the citizens of their city.
What, they don't reap enough money from the money the citizens pay them by way of taxes and subway fares? Any financial problems the MTA is having are probably due to their own poor organization and bureaucracy.
If they sent him a cease and desist for having incorrect information, fine, let him fix the information. Go ahead and send a letter requesting that he post a big disclaimer on his site saying, "This map is not officially sanctioned by the MTA," or "Information correct as of [date he last updated the map]." Anything along those lines are perfectly fine. However, I don't see how it makes sense for an organization that is essentially an arm of the government to be restricting access to maps of the public transportation system, let alone asking for a license.
It's one thing if the guy is selling maps; I can see asking for a percentage then. Asking him to keep either stop it or keep his information up to date would also be fine. But what, if I chose to simply mirror the MTAs maps in case their server went down, would they send me a cease and desist? If the MTA can't take a common sense approach and appreciate that New Yorkers have a right to the maps of their own public transportation, then all copyrights should be transferred to the city at large or public domain.
Information from organizations providing public services should be free. Personally, I wish someone would create an RSS feed of the MTA's service advisories. They post them on their website sometimes, but a RSS feed where you could subscribe to certain trains would be pretty useful. Would they send a cease and desist for that?
If they close iTunes, iPod users will just rip their own music (and share it) leaving 0 revenue.
Not only that, but cheap and convenient downloadable music has probably diminished piracy (which the RIAA is all freaked out about). So, in return for this boon for the RIAA, they threaten to pull out of and shut down the big wildly successful online music distributer.
Hmmm... it's almost as if they *want* online music distribution to fail.
I think Apple should start selling music directly from the musicians rather than going through the labels.
Can't they already do this, so long as the music is already produced? Like, if I was a musician, producing my own album, couldn't I just claim to be my own label and try to get it on iTMS (taking the cut for both the label and artist)?
Re:how many people actually _like_ windows?
on
Pepping Up Windows
·
· Score: 1
It's true that, to most people, Windows isn't a matter of preference. This should not be confused, however, with thinking that no one would prefer Windows.
What I mean is, most people I run into, most people don't know what an "operating system" is. They don't know what it is to use Windows vs. not using Windows. All they really know is, Macintoshes are weird/not normal. "Linux" is "that thing that computer guy talks about, but I don't understand what he's saying anyhow." If you actually install Linux for them, they can tell it's different from the Windows machine they're used to, but they don't understand what that means.
Ok, so when you're talking about OS preference, the only people you can ask are geeks. Geeks often don't like Microsoft to begin with. Asking, "Does anyone like Windows?" is about like asking, in a loud voice, "What do you think about deaf people?" The method of asking inherently selects an skewed sample.
Ok, so there are technical issues and interface issues as well, but I'm just pointed out that your question, especially being asked here on Slashdot, is bound to get slanted answers.
That being said, it seems to me that people who stick with OSX do so for aesthetic/interface reasons, people who stick with Linux do so out of technical/political considerations, and people who stick with Windows tend to do so because they feel stuck or are ignorant of the other options. But that's just how it seems to me (but that's from being in IT for several years and supporting friends/family).
Re:You can't have it both ways
on
Pepping Up Windows
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
They're less statisfied because of the woeful default applications, unlike Linux you have to buy/download all your additional tools.
However when Microsoft tries to bundle things with the OS to solve this problem (think IE), they're demonized for being a monopoly and trying to leverage their OS to cut out the competition.
This is true, to an extent. There are people who think Microsoft shouldn't bundle apps, and there are people who think that they should. However, bundling applications is just one of the issues that cause people to claim Microsoft is abusing a monopoly.
It's not just the fact that they bundle their own applications. It's that they:
refuse to bundle anyone else's application under any circumstances. The fact that IE comes pre-installed, and Firefox doesn't, provides a big advantage for IE.
make it impossible for you to remove their applications (at least in any supported way).
refuse to document the APIs that their own apps use, thereby allowing their own applications greater integration with the OS than other developers are capable of doing.
are suspected of purposefully sabotaging other applications by making changes to their undocumented APIs, file formats, and protocols.
Perhaps there are other concerns too.There are some that believe Microsoft should either cease bundling their own applications or start bundling alternatives as well, providing an option for users. I can see why people would want this, but I can also see a valid objection from Microsoft that if they bundle 3rd party applications, Microsoft would then have to provide support for products that they don't control. I don't think it would kill them, though, to throw a copy of Firefox on and put a disclaimer that it won't be supported by Microsoft.
Either way, I suspect that if Microsoft provided a means of uninstalling their applications (or not installing them in the first place), just like any other program, and documented all their APIs, protocols, and file formats, then a lot of the criticism would go away.
he UN does work fairly well for its intended purposes (diplomacy, aid, peacekeeping), but like pretty much any other political body, especially as one that relies heavily on consensus, it has become bloated, inefficient, corrupt and incompetent. Like any bored civil servant or zealous do-gooder, they are also taking on more and more extraneous tasks... such as this Internet thingy.
Very good point here. In general, political bodies should have well-defined roles, and they should be held to those roles. Since when is the UN a technology standards body? It seems to me that if you wanted to create a new international body, focused on impartial standards for technology such (and not focused on international politics), and run your own DNS, go ahead. Maybe it'll be really successful and the US won't need to run it anymore. But why the UN? The UN isn't built for it.
And why should the US feel responsible to hand over control of Internet infrastructure to every international body that comes along? I bet OPEC would like to decide what can be on the internet, or maybe the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community, but who cares?
The study of Ethics is more about what people in specific cultures feel is right than it is about what is absolutely right. Morals tend to be generic rules that are based on ethical principles. But, in the real world you need a system to specify which is worse the sending one innocent man to jail or not punishing 10 guilty men.
That's something like what I was saying, right? I can't quite tell if you mean to argue.
My point is the ends justify the means works as part of a moral and ethical system.
Perhaps as "part", in that 'intentions' and 'expected outcomes' play a role, but that doesn't mean that the ends, alone, justify the means.
Philosophers like to try and codify things like "absolute good" but that is no grantee that such things exist... [snip]... The central problem with philosophy is that just because an argument sounds good does not make it correct.
All these thousands of years that people have been trying to state "the problem with philosophy", and you think you got it in a sentence? Let's not even begin to attack that one unless you're willing to set aside a couple months of your life (minimum).
Thus, western thought moved on and codified the principles of science so that you could have some basis for judging the validity of ideas in the real world.
So you agree that science is a subset of philosophy? It was some of the same people who wanted to codify "absolute good", in fact, that also sought to codify the philosophic pursuit into science. In engineering terms, this limited scope lead to rapid progress. Make no mistake, good science is a branch philosophy with a limited scope. If not, how can you begin to judge the validity of ideas in the "real world" without establishing what you're inspecting when you inspect the "real world"?
Yeah, well I don't really even agree with it in the case of the $500 desktop. You're talking to a guy who uses an old laptop with a broken LCD and DVD drive for his primary desktop.
Slashdot Mirror
My thought when I read that, too. How is it politically neutral to the controversy to use the naming convention adopted by a political body where China has a large say and Taiwan has no say?
If you want to be neutral, include both names and note that it's in dispute.
And also to think that you and your friends weren't that rebellious when you were young.
Well, if you notice, I keep referring to Socrates as a "character". There was a real guy, of course, but we don't really have much of anything about the real guy. All we have are some contemporaries who've written Socrates into plays as a fictional character (Aristophanes, Plato). Their characterizations of Socrates are different, which leads us, then, to admit that we can speak of Plato's character "Socrates" and Aristophanes character "Socrates", but as you say, we know so very little about the historical Socrates. We also don't have anything in the way of Plato writing "I think this..." or "I think that...", but only dialogues which were, essentially, plays.
So really, I'm only talking here about Plato's character Socrates, who is known to be a bit of a trickster. In fact, a good tip for reading Plato, I think, is whenever Socrates states repeatedly that something is impossible and can't be taken seriously, it's probably the most true thing in the dialogue. However, that's my interpretation from some study, and there are plenty of others who'd disagree.
And yet this quote seems to be from the Republic (I'm not sure about that, though) where Socrates argues, at times, in favor of a fascist state. Most likely, this position's inclusion is a result of there being a general tone of mistrust towards the youth. I don't think that Socrates being "an old codger" is the only conclusion which can be drawn. For example, it might be that young people have been snotty and arrogant for 2500 years. Either way, this worrying about the corruption of the youth is not new, and the idea that young people were always angelic until just recently is a crock.
You seem to misunderstand my post, as well as some other things.
Not to make a big issue, but Plato is an amazingly witty and sarcastic writer, and his "views" are very unclear. Divining Plato's beliefs from the statements of his characters is pretty unreliable-- particularly when that character is Socrates, who is known to be purposefully misleading. There are plenty of reasons to believe Plato was against the "ideal utopia" as described in the Republic.
My point was, however reprehensible politicians are, the blame is still on us, the voters. If you think the politicians in office are deficient people, I won't disagree, but who put them there? The people. You and me.
Where did this quote come from? I'm being a bit picky (and off-topic) here, but I would guess Plato did not "complain about the youth of the day," but rather wrote a character is one of his dialogues (plays) complaining about the youth, and perhaps sarcastically. My guess is that this might be a translation of something Socrates said in the Republic, and misattributed to Plato himself.
Perchance the author was moderately circumlocutory, however I am willing to stipulate that his circulatory pump is within the correct locus.
Ok, let's blame the politicians. They're obviously shitty people with poor judgement and little moral fortitude. And what kind of moron put obviously shitty people in charge of running our lives?
I wish I had time to search for a quote, but Socrates also bashes poetry and art for being corrupting forces in a couple dialogues (notably the Republic, IIRC). POETRY. Yes, old people are blaming video games for corrupting the youth. A few short years ago, they were blaming music. Elvis used to be evil. Well, thousands of years ago, they were blaming *poetry*! And not Jack Kerouac poetry, but things like the Illiad. You know, that boring stuff that they make you read in school? Hell, Socrates was executed for corrupting the youth with *philosophy*.
Either way, I don't think I like it. "Ontology" is not the study of things, it's the study of "being". Ask me about the "ontology for iPods" and I won't tell you about Apple and the features of the iPod. If I bother to take you seriously, expect a lengthy metaphysical discussion about material and form, use and knowledge, and probably god (at some point) will be raised as a real issue. Then you'll get some little something about how all that relates to iPods.
Of course, I'm probably way too late for this discussion, as well as failing to be a member of the correct club. But couldn't they have found a word that actually means what they want it to mean?
Yeah... I kind of forgot to mention something about my little theory here: where it will fail. This "taking authority" business can work with normal workers (who aren't really the problem anyway) as well as mere bureaucrats. Even the really incompetent people who might get annoyed and angry, you won't have to worry about them if they're very incompetent (because they're too incompetent to do anything about it). However, you will run across people who are snotty and anti-authority who will be prone to do the exact opposite of whatever you say. You'll also run into people who are dumb and ambitious, those who hate successful people and who will blame their lack of success on your success.
And occasionally, every once in a while, you'll run up against someone who sees straight through your little charade. That, however, is exceedingly rare. Plus, if you're really doing a good job at the "taking authority" thing, and you're doing good things with the authority, then the people who understand what you're doing will usually be smart enough to just let you keep doing it.
um... that's "knowledge is half the battle!"
Remember the Milgram experiment? People respond to authority, and having a corner office or an important title aren't the only ways to get people to view you as an authority. Find ways to get people to listen to you, get people to trust you, keep your head up, appear proud, appear to "know what you're doing", etc. Yes, you might say that my advice boils down to "beat them at their own game". If you're fighting people who've gained authority through technicalities and fancy titles, you just need to find another way to steal authority for yourself.
What, they don't reap enough money from the money the citizens pay them by way of taxes and subway fares? Any financial problems the MTA is having are probably due to their own poor organization and bureaucracy.
If they sent him a cease and desist for having incorrect information, fine, let him fix the information. Go ahead and send a letter requesting that he post a big disclaimer on his site saying, "This map is not officially sanctioned by the MTA," or "Information correct as of [date he last updated the map]." Anything along those lines are perfectly fine. However, I don't see how it makes sense for an organization that is essentially an arm of the government to be restricting access to maps of the public transportation system, let alone asking for a license.
It's one thing if the guy is selling maps; I can see asking for a percentage then. Asking him to keep either stop it or keep his information up to date would also be fine. But what, if I chose to simply mirror the MTAs maps in case their server went down, would they send me a cease and desist? If the MTA can't take a common sense approach and appreciate that New Yorkers have a right to the maps of their own public transportation, then all copyrights should be transferred to the city at large or public domain.
Information from organizations providing public services should be free. Personally, I wish someone would create an RSS feed of the MTA's service advisories. They post them on their website sometimes, but a RSS feed where you could subscribe to certain trains would be pretty useful. Would they send a cease and desist for that?
Not only that, but cheap and convenient downloadable music has probably diminished piracy (which the RIAA is all freaked out about). So, in return for this boon for the RIAA, they threaten to pull out of and shut down the big wildly successful online music distributer.
Hmmm... it's almost as if they *want* online music distribution to fail.
Can't they already do this, so long as the music is already produced? Like, if I was a musician, producing my own album, couldn't I just claim to be my own label and try to get it on iTMS (taking the cut for both the label and artist)?
What I mean is, most people I run into, most people don't know what an "operating system" is. They don't know what it is to use Windows vs. not using Windows. All they really know is, Macintoshes are weird/not normal. "Linux" is "that thing that computer guy talks about, but I don't understand what he's saying anyhow." If you actually install Linux for them, they can tell it's different from the Windows machine they're used to, but they don't understand what that means.
Ok, so when you're talking about OS preference, the only people you can ask are geeks. Geeks often don't like Microsoft to begin with. Asking, "Does anyone like Windows?" is about like asking, in a loud voice, "What do you think about deaf people?" The method of asking inherently selects an skewed sample.
Ok, so there are technical issues and interface issues as well, but I'm just pointed out that your question, especially being asked here on Slashdot, is bound to get slanted answers.
That being said, it seems to me that people who stick with OSX do so for aesthetic/interface reasons, people who stick with Linux do so out of technical/political considerations, and people who stick with Windows tend to do so because they feel stuck or are ignorant of the other options. But that's just how it seems to me (but that's from being in IT for several years and supporting friends/family).
However when Microsoft tries to bundle things with the OS to solve this problem (think IE), they're demonized for being a monopoly and trying to leverage their OS to cut out the competition.
This is true, to an extent. There are people who think Microsoft shouldn't bundle apps, and there are people who think that they should. However, bundling applications is just one of the issues that cause people to claim Microsoft is abusing a monopoly.
It's not just the fact that they bundle their own applications. It's that they:
- refuse to bundle anyone else's application under any circumstances. The fact that IE comes pre-installed, and Firefox doesn't, provides a big advantage for IE.
- make it impossible for you to remove their applications (at least in any supported way).
- refuse to document the APIs that their own apps use, thereby allowing their own applications greater integration with the OS than other developers are capable of doing.
- are suspected of purposefully sabotaging other applications by making changes to their undocumented APIs, file formats, and protocols.
Perhaps there are other concerns too.There are some that believe Microsoft should either cease bundling their own applications or start bundling alternatives as well, providing an option for users. I can see why people would want this, but I can also see a valid objection from Microsoft that if they bundle 3rd party applications, Microsoft would then have to provide support for products that they don't control. I don't think it would kill them, though, to throw a copy of Firefox on and put a disclaimer that it won't be supported by Microsoft.Either way, I suspect that if Microsoft provided a means of uninstalling their applications (or not installing them in the first place), just like any other program, and documented all their APIs, protocols, and file formats, then a lot of the criticism would go away.
We're not interested in your 700MB of whiny bloggers talking about how Serenity will be "teh r0x0rs" and complaining about iPod nano scratches.
Very good point here. In general, political bodies should have well-defined roles, and they should be held to those roles. Since when is the UN a technology standards body? It seems to me that if you wanted to create a new international body, focused on impartial standards for technology such (and not focused on international politics), and run your own DNS, go ahead. Maybe it'll be really successful and the US won't need to run it anymore. But why the UN? The UN isn't built for it.
And why should the US feel responsible to hand over control of Internet infrastructure to every international body that comes along? I bet OPEC would like to decide what can be on the internet, or maybe the Asian and Pacific Coconut Community, but who cares?
That's something like what I was saying, right? I can't quite tell if you mean to argue.
My point is the ends justify the means works as part of a moral and ethical system.
Perhaps as "part", in that 'intentions' and 'expected outcomes' play a role, but that doesn't mean that the ends, alone, justify the means.
Philosophers like to try and codify things like "absolute good" but that is no grantee that such things exist... [snip]... The central problem with philosophy is that just because an argument sounds good does not make it correct.
All these thousands of years that people have been trying to state "the problem with philosophy", and you think you got it in a sentence? Let's not even begin to attack that one unless you're willing to set aside a couple months of your life (minimum).
Thus, western thought moved on and codified the principles of science so that you could have some basis for judging the validity of ideas in the real world.
So you agree that science is a subset of philosophy? It was some of the same people who wanted to codify "absolute good", in fact, that also sought to codify the philosophic pursuit into science. In engineering terms, this limited scope lead to rapid progress. Make no mistake, good science is a branch philosophy with a limited scope. If not, how can you begin to judge the validity of ideas in the "real world" without establishing what you're inspecting when you inspect the "real world"?
Yeah, well I don't really even agree with it in the case of the $500 desktop. You're talking to a guy who uses an old laptop with a broken LCD and DVD drive for his primary desktop.