Disqus - Latest Comments for Carl M

Re: The Nastiest Thing In The World

Carl M — Mon, 29 May 2006 11:50:11 -0000

If you want COLD milk, you just put your glass (must be GLASS) of milk in the freezer for a few minutes.

Re: Hairbrain

Carl M — Tue, 04 Jul 2006 11:08:04 -0000

Good stuff. I like it. Upon hearing each song once, I actually prefer "Waitin' for the Right Time," though the guitar is a bit more interesting in "Reaching.." It's a close call.

Re: The Monty Hall Math Puzzle

Carl M — Thu, 06 Jul 2006 09:17:48 -0000

Well, this is indeed a classic example of our faulty intuition when it comes to estimating probabilities. I have always been puzzled however by the fact that people create simulations to get a better "understanding" of what is going on.

While I'm all for simulations in many situations (and in any case it's perhaps a good exercise to create them), a simulation is not needed to analyze this particular puzzle because there are only 9 possible situations. The prize can be behind any of Door 1, Door 2, and Door 3, and we can select any of Door 1, Door 2, and Door 3. There are nine possible combinations.

Though we could analyze all 9, let's just look at three. Suppose that the prize is behind Door 1. If we initially select Door 1 and then switch to the unshown door (whichever it is - in this case the host could reveal EITHER Door 2 or Door 3), we will lose. On the other hand, if we select Door 2 then the host MUST reveal Door 3 (the host will not reveal the prize). So the unshown door is Door 1 (the PRIZE). Switching to that door will cause us to WIN. A similar situation holds if we initially select Door 3. So, in 2 of the 3 cases, switching wins. It's as simple as that.

Simple it may be, but intuitive it is not. That is why this is a standard example in my Elementary Statistics classes.

PS If you want another nifty example of a counterintuitive probability result (related in fact to error correction in computers), let me know. :D

Re: Ricky Gervais Talks About The Bible

Carl M — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:48:22 -0000

That was great. And, sadly, it would get booed off the stage in much of the US.

Re: My Gaming Idea

Carl M — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 08:55:09 -0000

And, why are the women going to go hang out in the virtual bars in their new clothes if the guys there think of the bar as a saloon setting for a gunfight?

Re: Cord Tanglingisms

Carl M — Thu, 27 Jul 2006 09:04:43 -0000

It doesn't take much to tangle the cords. I suspect that it boils down to how you remove them. If you grab the end of a cord (allowing the loops of that cord to tighten as you pull), you will likely create a tangle. Take a nicely looped extension cord (100 feet is a good length for this) and drop it on the ground. It will look fairly nicely looped, but if you pick it up wrong, it'll tangle. There is a secret to "coiling" extension cords (a sort of zig-zag gathering rather than a coiling) that prevents the twisting issues and largely prevents tangles. Similarly, looping the long cord of a vacuum cleaner in a figure 8 pattern as you gather it on the hooks rather than in a loop eliminates the twisting of the cord.

Re: Ten Out Of Ten Vegetarians…

Carl M — Fri, 11 Aug 2006 09:19:31 -0000

... so far.

Re: Social Engineering: It’s Much Harder For Criminals

Carl M — Tue, 15 Aug 2006 10:59:38 -0000

Well, if someone has spent time in jail/prison and doesn't mind it so much (perhaps considers the possibility a price that he is willing to pay), then this person would perhaps be able to pull it off as easily as you did. When I was in high school, I learned that I NEVER had to show a hall pass to the hall monitors. While SOME of them knew me and knew that I wasn't going to get into any trouble, many did NOT know me, but saw that I was walking with authority and intent ... looking straight ahead, nodding at them and saying hi as I passed, etc. I was NEVER asked to show a hall pass (though I always had one .. well except for a couple of tests I did just to see).

Re: Finishing My Degree

Carl M — Tue, 22 Aug 2006 16:05:32 -0000

I'm not an employer either, but I too have an uneasy feeling about UoP. It may be entirely unjustified, but at this point in history, I believe that a degree from a "real" school (apologies to UoP) seems to me to have more value.

I'm not sure how necessary it is for you. The toughest job to get without a degree is the FIRST one. Once you build a reputation, perhaps the reputation speaks more loudly than a degree would. On the other hand, the lack of a degree is an excuse for a potential employer to sort your application into the "no" pile. You don't need to give them any excuse for that.

To sum up:

• I believe that a degree (even an online one!) from a physical campus is more valuable (at this time) than a degree from an entirely online school.

• A reputation in a field CAN be a large plus to a potential employer.

• A degree will open additional doors (or will ensure that they are not automatically closed to you).

Furthermore, if you ever decided to switch fields, a degree will still be a valuable credential. Experience may be less so.

Re: GCIA Completed

Carl M — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:45:21 -0000

Clearly they wanted you to use l and O (lower case L and capital o). That works in pretty much any font. :) Seriously though ... when I was in high school there wasno "1" on a typewriter. You simply used the lowercase L. REALLY.

Re: Finishing My Degree

Carl M — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 07:48:16 -0000

To be fair, UoP _is_ an accredited school, but I still have this gut feeling that it just isn't the same (at this point in history).

Re: Physics: Stranger Than Fiction

Carl M — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 12:52:55 -0000

Nice video.

There was a slight problem with the animation of the interfering waves .. well, not with the animation but with the interference pattern on the screen (the bright lines didn't all line up with the places that the waves were adding to each other). But ... that's just being picky.

It was a nice demonstration of real experients .. and done in such a way that people can understand what happens (not WHY, but what).

For those who are curious about how observing could possibly change the behavior of the electron (how could the electron KNOW that it is being observed?) ... it isn't that mysterious. An observation of an object REQUIRES interaction with an object (even if that interaction is as simple as bouncing a photon off of it to SEE it .. there are other means of observing, but ALL require interaction of some sort).

Re: Physics: Stranger Than Fiction

Carl M — Wed, 30 Aug 2006 14:54:21 -0000

:) nice .. that "watched pot" comment got a chuckle from me.

OK, let me try to explain. And, let me be clear, what I intend to explain is ONLY that observation can be expected to change the outcome of an experiment. Not that observation changes it in the precise way that it does.

First of all, the act of observing the electrons pass through one slit or the other requires some specialized observation equipment. We want to know for each individual electron whether it is passing through the left slit or the right slit. It is not a simple matter of simply LOOKING vs NOT LOOKING. To "see" the electron, we need to direct a light source at it OR use some sort of detector that can detect moving charges (which create a magnetic field which can be detected). Here's the thing. For light to be able to SEE something with light, the wavelength has to be roughly the size of the object being seen (or smaller). The smaller the wavelength of light, the more energetic it is. Electrons are tiny and to SEE them with light, we need to direct photons of fairly high energy at them. When the light reflects back to the observer (us), it imparts energy to the electron (the whole action-reaction thing). This changes the momentum (direction and speed) of the electron. You can see that this could change what happens. It doesn't matter if we actually LOOK at the reflected light. That is, we don't actually have to OBSERVE the light .. it is enough that we directed the energy beam at the electron. This is the thing that causes the disruption. We could instead simply try to detect the magnetic field generated by the electron. But putting a detector near a slit that the magnetic field pushes on (a simplification, but you get the idea) will result in (you guessed it) an equal and opposite push. This also changes the momentum of the electron. The double slit experiment works only when the electrons are free from interference of these sorts.

Here's an interesting page if you really want to read more about this stuff:

http://www.ncsu.edu/felder-public/kenny/papers/...

---

OK, I'm not sure I've convinced anyone of anything, but (on an ALMOST entirely different subject -- inspired only by my mention of the magnetic field detector above) let me mention a couple of interesting things you can do with a loop of wire and a battery.

(1) Create an electromagnet.
(2) Create a metal detector. (The hand held things that people use to look for treasure on the beach are essentially loops of wire. So are the detectors at traffic lights.)
(3) Create a transformer (requires a couple of loops of wire).

OK, I'm getting off subject ... I'll get back to my lecture writing. :)

Re: Physics: Stranger Than Fiction

Carl M — Thu, 31 Aug 2006 07:54:10 -0000

Indeed, the uncertainty principle is key to much of this stuff. Your explanation is good .. just keep in mind that when objects are large, our observations don't disturb them in any significant way. But when objects are tiny, the observations can disturb them in significant ways.

Re: Jesus Camp

Carl M — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 16:27:17 -0000

OMG

Talk about your false dichotimies:

It's either (militant) Christian Bible Camp or a camp where kids are handed hand grenades.

I'd like to cast my vote for "none of the above."

Re: A Water-Powered World

Carl M — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 15:08:44 -0000

Call me a skeptic.

• If his car could run entirely on water, WHY make it a gasoline/water hybrid?

• The torch video was VERY misleading. You heard him say that he creates the gas using electrolysis (using electricity). The FUEL (energy source) is the electricity. The water is converted to HHO gas (WHAT THE HECK IS THAT? Steam?). It just isn't clear what he's doing.

• My guess is that he's deluded. He probably believes what he claims, but I'm extremely skeptical.

Re: A Water-Powered World

Carl M — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 08:21:39 -0000

I'm sticking with my original belief that the guy is deluded. You're right that local newscasts generally do not do even a slightly good job with science. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that there is always real science going on behind the scenes.

Aquygen™ Gas does not follow the fundamental PVT law for gases.

That's from the science page of the guy's website. Well, from
http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/physics/IdealGa...
We see that the ideal gas law is something that many common gases approximate at standard temperature and pressure. The way this is phrased, it appears that this is not an absolutle law after all. Hmmm .... maybe when a vapor is at a temperature below its boiling point the law doesn't hold. This would explain this little mystery.

Still, to be fair to this guy, he did get a paper published
http://hytechapps.com/aquygen/international_jou...

Nonetheless, I remain STRONGLY skeptical and will be extremely surprised if we ever see an engine that produces more energy from water than the electricity needed to produce the Aquygen Gas (whatever that is).

Re: If You’re An Atheist, Don’t Hide It

Carl M — Mon, 11 Sep 2006 12:48:09 -0000

It _is_ scary. Indeed, I believe that someone who is openly atheist would have a hard time being elected to public office in many parts (most parts?) of the US. People claim to look at the issues, but still vote mostly along party lines or let some single issue trump all others. I think that for many in this country, religion (or lack thereof) is one such issue.

Re: My Response To A “Bush Is Great” Email

Carl M — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 09:12:11 -0000

I try not to think about the fact that after the attacks of 9/11, the entire world sympathized with us and was behind us in our attacks on the Taliban & al-Quaida. But when Bush made his axis of evil remarks and then attacked Iraq (arguably the LEAST problematic of the three countries in his axis of evil), he turned the world against us. This was inexcusable. His administration keeps asking the question: Is the world better off with Saddam Hussein out of power? And they seem to be honestly puzzled that everyone doesn't rush to answer "YES!!!!" The fact is that this is not a fair question. It is not a meaningful question. It has no context. The world (and in particular the US) is NOT safer now than it was before 9/11. I don't believe that one gets safer by creating enemies and alienating friends.

Re: Frog-Slaying with Danzig

Carl M — Wed, 13 Sep 2006 10:18:47 -0000

Clearly this was God's way of punishing you for listening to Danzig.

Re: My Response To A “Bush Is Great” Email

Carl M — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 15:59:05 -0000

It is not true that the _world_ has hated us for a long time. The events you list (L.W.) are not representative of a wide range of countries. And, though some of our allies have disliked the attitude of "the world revolves around the United States of America" that has been espoused by many of our leaders (Democrats and Republicans alike), it has always been my impression that they did not really dislike the US and in fact respected our freedoms, etc. But, Bush has managed to change all that. As I said in my original post, the world was behind us after 9/11. Had Bush appropriately used their support to deal with the terrorists and not used 9/11 as an excuse to pursue other agendas, the respect of the world might still be with us. Had Bush understood that to diminish our freedoms is to let the terrorists win, the support of the US citizens might still be with him. Had Bush come down HARD on those in the military who did respect the Geneva Conventions and basic human rights, then the world might not wonder what has happened to our once proud country. Now even our strongest allies (who will stand with us a while longer .. some because they think that they have something to gain by being our friends, and others because they remember who we were) have begun to lose some of their respect for us. I'm not sure that they hate us (the United States), but some of them sure seem to hate our president. And, I cannot see how to defend him. I am saddened by some of the things that some of my countrymen have done under the cloak of "fighting terrorists," and I hope that the world can forgive us.

Re: My Response To A “Bush Is Great” Email

Carl M — Sat, 16 Sep 2006 16:01:11 -0000

PS I do not blame Bush for the attacks of 9/11. I (mostly) agree that he just happened to be president when that attack took place. I blame him for what he has done (and not done) since.

Re: The Truth About Horsepower, Torque, and Acceleration

Carl M — Tue, 19 Sep 2006 11:07:03 -0000

"What matters more for acceleration -- horsepower or torque?"

"... anyone telling you that either horsepower or torque is more important than the other is significantly off-base."

"So yeah, the answer to the question is horsepower."

Um ...

:)

Re: My Next Car Has Been Chosen

Carl M — Wed, 27 Sep 2006 07:23:49 -0000

As they say ... ymmv.

If you push those turbos, I'm thinking that the mpg might be slightly less. :)

I'm still a Point A to Point B kind of guy. If a vehicle does that, it's doing its job.

Re: Adding Ads

Carl M — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:41:49 -0000

Well, _I_ don't think that. Nor do I think "This site must be pretty weak" if there are no ads. But, your ads are not flashy or annoying, so I've no problem with them.

Re: BioPassword: Two-Factor Authentication The Easy Way

Carl M — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 14:25:06 -0000

I'm curious if you let them watch you log on first. I'm just wondering how sensitive the software is. I mean, when we keep the same password for an extended time (a big no-no of course) we develop a rhythm for typing both our username and password. If we change our password frequently, the rhythm will be substantially different (though perhaps fairly consistent). Anyway, the software can't be TOO picky since our rhythms are not 100% consistent. So, I'm wondering if someone watching you log on could mimic your rhythm sufficiently well to fool the software.

Re: New Server Live

Carl M — Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:40:28 -0000

... and it's got that new server smell.

Re: 6 Steps To Becoming An Information Security Guru

Carl M — Sun, 08 Oct 2006 18:05:00 -0000

Thanks for including Communication Skills in your list. When I advise my students as they register for classes, they often make comments like "I don't really like history" or "Why do we have to take so much English?" If they make the history comment, I tell them that everyone has his or her own interests, but it is important to have a broad education and that history is important to put corrent events into a meaningful context. But if they make the English comment, they get a mini lecture about the importance of communication skills. Regardless of your job, you will need to communicate effectively. Indeed in nearly all aspects of your life you will be judged to one degree or another based on your ability to communicate.

Re: Ten Weeks In NYC

Carl M — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 07:30:27 -0000

First of all, you MUST get a pass for the subway. They are incredibly efficient when you know how to use them. You'll want a good map that shows the stations. The plastic coated Manhattan tri-fold map that you can get a Borders or Barnes & Noble is a great one.

Second, if you'll be there that long, I'd recommend taking the circle cruise. A three-hour boat ride around the island. This will help you get oriented and give you an appreciation of where things are in relation to each other and how near/far they are. And, if you have a good guide on the cruise, you will learn a lot about the city as well.

Third, even if you are not into theater, you need to see a couple of boradway productions. I'd recommend seeing a couple of different types (musical, drama). If you haven't been before, it's worth doing.

Fourth, eat pizza. I'm from Chicago (land of Chicago Style Pizza), but I love NY pizza too.

Fifth, explore Central Park. There's a lot thre to see. Take your time.

Sixth, museums. Art, Science, ... explore, learn, ...

Seventh, take the Staten Island Ferry (It's Free). Take it at night for some great views of the city.

Eighth, visit the Statue of Liberty and Ellis Island.

Ninth, eat other food (sure, you could eat pizza every meal, but there's too much there to explore).

Tenth, ... well ... get a "things to do in NYC" book and see what captures your interest.

Eleventh, HAVE FUN!

Re: Some Evidence That Bush May In Fact Be Sick, Not Stupid

Carl M — Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:13:08 -0000

I'm not a Bush fan (at all), but I don't think that the video is really fair. There is an enormous difference between being President and being governor. A governor in a debate doesn't need to worry about more than a handful of issues. A president has to worry about MANY MANY more. Furthermore, ANYONE who talks in front of a camera as much as a president does will have lapses which make him or her look like an idiot when those clips are played in isolation. The video presents the case as if it was simply factual information when in fact it is a sequence of video clips carefully chosen to prove a point. I'm not convinced that the video PROVES anything.

Re: Math Pickup Lines

Carl M — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:51:03 -0000

Don't believe it! You'd be surprised how ineffective those were for me as an undergrad.
(Some of the math-geek jokes in there are pretty funny though.)

On the other hand, THIS song will woo anyone!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vba9eV8RS6M

(Lots of inside math jokes are buried in here too.)

Re: Don’t Ask Me For My Social, Ever. Ever.

Carl M — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:54:59 -0000

GOOD!

I'm the same way. I give that number for TAX purposes only (employer, IRS). And, I too will launch into a lecture if anyone asks for it (though it is rare these days). ... Of course I don't give my phone number at checkouts in stores either.

Re: Experience Without

Carl M — Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:16:06 -0000

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Now I understand your fascination with the UFC stuff.

Re: More On Incentives

Carl M — Sat, 11 Nov 2006 17:57:18 -0000

You have nailed it. I know some people who are extremely religious and simply don't believe that it is possible to be motivated to be good if there is no God. Frankly, this attitude scares me.

Also, there's another factor in the heaven or hell scenerio you painted. What if someone does believe that those are the options, but also believes that they have done something that lands them squarely in the "going to hell" group. They're ALREADY going to hell, so why bother being "good" any more?

Re: More On Incentives

Carl M — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:29:57 -0000

I took Daniel's post as sharing a disappointment with those who believe that goodness requires belief in a God. We tell children not to do something or they will be punished. This may well be a decent way to train children to behave in particular ways. Religion tells people not to do certain things or they will go to hell. This may well be a decent way to train people to behave in particular ways. BUT, it is by no means necessary. Furthermore, it takes away from the humanity of acting in humane ways. When a child acts well because he is afraid of punishment, it's OK during the training phase, but what we HOPE is that they develop an understanding that the good behavior is appropriate even when the threat of punishment is removed.

When a child becomes an adult, he or she should (IMHO) make decisions based on logic (and I would hope based on what will benefit everyone the most). So, an adult can ignore the training that says "don't eat your dessert until you finish your vegetables" if they like. This does not hurt anyone. An adult cannot (or should not) ignore the training that says "don't steal." But they should not avoid stealing because they are afraid of punishment (from society or from God). They should avoid stealing because they understand that it is "wrong" to steal. (I know .. who am I to dictate what is WRONG?)

An adult who believes that anarchy is bad, should conform to the laws of the society that they live in (even ones that they don't see the point of but don't find morally offensive). This conformity to societal rules should come because they understand that if everyone chose which laws to obey and which NOT to obey, it would lead to anarchy. If anarchy is bad, then each individual must decide to follow the laws. Threats of punishment are for those too stupid to realize this for themselves.

People of many religions believe in the Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." I have spoken to religious people that don't believe that you can really believe in the Golden Rule unless you believe in God. I find this absurd. The Golden Rule is absolutely logical. It is the most succinct way to summarize the "right move" in the game of life.

Carl M

Re: More On Incentives

Carl M — Mon, 13 Nov 2006 15:33:30 -0000

One other thing .. Daniel, you stated:

"This is exacerbated by the fact that God is supposed to be punishing those who do these things, but he isn’t."

This is obviously why (for the THREAT of God's punishment to work) the punishment is claimed (by most religious people) to be delayed until after death. Religious people who believe in God's punishment would argue that the punishment will come. It will simply come after the person being punished has died.

Re: More On Incentives

Carl M — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:35:00 -0000

OMG ... that video is scary. I watched about 1 minute of it (it looks to be over 2 hours long). That 1 minute was plenty. Lies in the textbooks include: The Big Bang, The Age of the Earth, and Cave Men.

lol ... I'm not sure if that's funny or scary, but I'm leaning to scary since the guy seems absolutely serious (as does the audience).

Incredible.

Re: Believing You’re Smarter Makes You Smarter? No.

Carl M — Wed, 15 Nov 2006 15:44:11 -0000

Well, I was going ot say (more or less) what Tim said ... if people believe that they're stupid and that this is not fixable, then they will indeed remain stupid. I would choose to use the word ignorant, but ignorant people are more likely to use the word stupid to describe themselves.

So, it's critical that teachers not tell students that they are stupid.

On the other hand, if teachers hand out meaningless grades or tell students that they understand everything (when this is not the case), then students don't have any motivation to work harder.

So, it's critical that teachers not just tell all their students that they're smart.

I think that built-in (innate) intelligence is a low percentage of overall intelligence. Perhaps 20% of intelligence is innate, and 80% comes from experience and training (learning). So, what teachers need to do is tell students that they are not working hard enough. Intelligence CAN be changed ... or aptitude can ... and I'm not convinced that they are really different. Or .. at least, I'm not convinced that we can really separate out the innate intelligence from aptitude.

OK ... this will have to go out unedited .. pardon any messy logic or sentences ... I've a meeting to run off to.

Re: No More Clichés

Carl M — Sat, 18 Nov 2006 18:51:49 -0000

Boy, if I had a nickel for every time someone said not to use cliches!
I mean ... if I've heard that once, I've heard it a million times!

Re: The Worst Anti-Spam Technique Ever: “Bouncing” Spam Messages

Carl M — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 14:16:22 -0000

He's not replying to the message, he's "bouncing" it back ... basically the system sends back the same "This is an invalid address" message that gets sent when mail is sent to an invalid address.

This is not to say that this is a good idea. But it's not quite as stupid as just replying to the spammer to tell him that you'd really rather that he didn't send you advertisements for v1aG ra.

Re: Is Information Security Education Failing?

Carl M — Tue, 19 Dec 2006 10:06:09 -0000

I was going to say basically the same thing. Can you prevent attacks on a computer from the outside? Sure, just don't connect the computer to a network. Similarly, you can prevent attacks from the inside if you don't let anyone anywhere near the computer. But, yeah, as a yes/no question, the better answer is perhaps "no" ... if only because fewer qualifiers are needed with that answer than with "yes".

Re: Breaking News From Macworld: Windows Mobile Team Commits Suicide

Carl M — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 15:42:49 -0000

Well, I was going to tell you in another thread that I don't go in for too much of the materialistic side of life. A car for example is strictly something to get me from point A to point B. But then Apple has to come out with a rather nifty little device .. and .. well .. I WANT ONE!

Re: Rolex: It’s Not What You Think

Carl M — Mon, 22 Jan 2007 13:58:41 -0000

OK, here's where I can talk about not being materialistic. I don't even UNDERSTAND certain aspects of materialism. For $200 or so, you can get a watch that is waterproof (a divers watch), keeps essentially perfect time (sets itself every day), and has other nice functionality. OR, for $5000 or so, you can get a Rolex Submariner. You might say that the Rolex will last longer. That is VERY likely true. I saw an article somewhere recently that said that we could design cellphones that lasted for decades too if we were willing to spend more on them. My reaction to that article was: "Why would I want a 20 year old cellphone when the functionality of cellphones is still changing so fast?" I'd rather have a $200 watch (or .. more likely a $50 watch) that does what I need. If a new watch comes out with added functionality that I think I'd find useful (GPS or whatever), I can get one if I considered it necessary (or even just fun and useful). I could buy a lifetime of watches with lots of different functionality for less than the price of the Rolex.

Convince me that you didn't get this watch in part simply because it was a ROLEX (ie: for the name itself ... not for what you claim the name implies, but for the NAME itself).

... PS ... I still think that the iPhone (ApplePhone?) is a nifty gadget and wouldn't mind having one (I bet it keeps pretty good time too). So, I understand liking gadgets for their functionality.

Re: How To Destroy America

Carl M — Tue, 23 Jan 2007 13:17:42 -0000

Without mercy? Seriously?

I tried to post a response before I left for class this morning, but had trouble getting it posted .. don't know what the problem was. Anyway .. I agree with MOST of what is said in the speech. I think some of it is overstated. He says that it is good for individuals to be multilingual, but bad for a society. I agree with that COMPLETELY. But (and perhaps my own interpretation of diversity is different than his) he implies that diversity is bad. I disagree with this. Diversity is good .. but there is a time an a place to express differences. For example, some cultures have a very relaxed attitude about time ... starting times are goals rather than actual expected starting times. It is NOT acceptable (and let me just use a random example here) to a teacher for students of different cultures to treat the starting time of the class differently. Class starts at 8:00. Be there at 8:00 or risk offending that teacher (and being a distraction to the other students in the class). There is (and SHOULD be) a set of societal norms that allow us to function efficiently as a society. It is likely true that a different set of societal norms might work more or less as well. But it is NOT true that a "salad bowl" mix of societal norms works as well. On the other hand, it would be inappropriate for a teacher to be offended at behavior that does not interfere with the smooth and orderly operation of the class. A tattoo on the forehead (assuming that it doesn't distract the rest of the students) is not relevant to the operation of the class and the teacher shouldn't care about such things. (Of course a potential employer might well find the tattoo on the forehead to be a deal breaker .. and I can imagine MANY situations where that would be an appropriate decision.)

Each of us interacts with different pieces of society all the time, and we (most of us) have learned how to behave in various settings. We (most of us) don't go to a tranquil setting where people are enjoying the scenery and sounds of nature and play our boomboxes at full blast. We (most of us) don't talk on our cellphones in the theater (nor do we arrive 20 minutes late and disturb those who arrived on time as we look for seats). We also interact with the society of our friends. And, there may be (probably is) a wider range of acceptable behavior with our friends. It is here that diverse values, behaviors, etc. may be welcomed and celebrated. It goes to far to imply that diversity is bad.

As for the language issue .. I have believed since I was a teenager that English should be our national language (in fact, I was somewhat surprised at the time when I discovered that it wasn't ... not officially anyway). I remember quite clearly when pay phones changed their price from 10 cents to 25 cents (this may have just been in the Chicago area). The phone company was ordered to change the price back to 10 cents until they posted instructions regarding the increase in both English and Spanish. I thought (and still think) that this was absurd.

We do nobody any favors by making it easier for them to get by without learning English. (By the way, I'm all for having EMERGENCY services in multiple languages.) English is the language of our society .. communication in a society is crucial .. therefore it is important to be able to communicate in English. (I really don't see any logical error there.)

Carl

Re: BEL > Escort

Carl M — Wed, 24 Jan 2007 18:56:52 -0000

OR ...

stick to the speed limits. :)

Re: You Are Wrong About President Bush

Carl M — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:23:33 -0000

I agree with most of what you said, Daniel (and agree entirely with Tim).

Bush is not evil .. he is misguided, wrongheaded, and almost criminally stubborn. But I do agree that his intentions are good.

I don't think that there is any hope for impeachment, but I do think that there needs to be some kind of apology to the world at some point.

Yours is phrased pretty well, but I would change "try AND learn" to "try TO learn" ... it's not that we're going to TRY .. AND .. we're going to LEARN. We're going to "TRY TO LEARN". This is a common error (way too common).

I have made it my mission to try and eliminate it from the language ... um .. er ...

I have made it my mission to try to eliminate it from the language.

Sorry ... I apologize for once again attacking without mercy. :)

Re: You Are Wrong About President Bush

Carl M — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 12:33:01 -0000

Oh ... and I meant to add ...

I would have thought that your last comment was OBVIOUS!

"What we need to realize is that it takes more than just passion to solve complex problems. It takes intelligence and and the willingness to see other perspectives."

Re: You Are Wrong About President Bush

Carl M — Thu, 25 Jan 2007 16:54:26 -0000

Rick,

in the 90's we formed a coalition to remove Iraq from Kuwait. After that was done, if we had gone further -- unilaterally -- we would have lost the support of our allies. You can argue that this is not relevant I suppose, but I think it is relevant. This is (I believe) a large reason that Bush is so unpopular at home. After 9/11 the US had the support of most of the world .. and most Americans. By going BEYOND Afghanistan and taking unilateral action against Iraq, he lost this support. This is ONE THING that angers so many people.

You are right that the lack of understanding by most Iraqis of what a democracy can be is mere cultural ignorance on their part. Americans are guilty of cultural ignorance too .. and more than our share of cultural arrogance. It is NOT our place to convert the world to American style democracy -- or to democracy at all. Let us lead by example. Let us show the world that we value our freedoms SO DEEPLY that we will not let terrorists take away our freedoms (as some provisions in the Patriot Act have done). Let us show the world that we value human rights SO DEEPLY that we will not trample on the human rights of ANY PEOPLE .. ANYWHERE. This is ANOTHER thing that angers MANY people. When we have our freedoms taken away .. .the terrorists win a small victory. When we trample on the rights of humans, the sould of this GREAT COUNTRY dies a little.

I do agree that we should work hard to HELP to rebuild Iraq.

Re: You Are Wrong About President Bush

Carl M — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 07:24:53 -0000

This is getting WAY off topic now, but ...

Why must we CRUSH our competition (economically or otherwise)?

Seriously. The attitude that being competitive (and successful) isn't enough .. that we must not only be number ONE but must CRUSH all others .. is the stereotypically arrogant American attitude that makes us look like fools in the eyes of much of the world.

RIck, you are right about this trait (arrogance) being shared by folks on both sides of the aisle. In one of his State Of the Union speeches, Bill Clinton implied that the United States (and only the United States) was an indispensible nation. Actual quote: "Let us do what it takes to remain the indispensable nation -- to keep America strong, secure and prosperous for another 50 years." Nothing wrong with wanting to be strong, secure, and prosperous. Something MINDBOGGLINGLY wrong with implying that other nations are dispensible. I spoke to a friend from Iceland the next day via IM and she had heard that and said that it was another example of the arrogance of the American government. She understood that it was the government and not the people that made the statement. What does most of the world know of the US? They know the rhetoric from the government that they see on the news (and they see only a PART of that). They know American music and movies. THIS is what their opinions of the US are based on. Is it any surprise that some distrust and/or dislike us? I'd like to think that if they knew the REAL America, then they would understand that we are a strong and caring people. That we want to raise our standard of living and are willing to work hard to do so -- but NOT AT THE EXPENSE of the standard of living of others who are also willing to work hard to improve their own lives. IT IS NOT A ZERO SUM GAME! That is, for us to win it does not require others to lose.

While I'm writing ...

" in bed with Saddam" ... WE were supporters of Saddam at one point. and ... IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WAR ON TERROR. (It does NOW ... but it didn't when we went in.)

Rick, it may be true that those you know are upset because we were too diplomatic, but this is NOT why the majority of Americans are opposed to Bush's policies.

Re: You Are Wrong About President Bush

Carl M — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:23:04 -0000

I didn't really think that you were being malicious, but the word CRUSH has a meaning. When Americans talk like that, the world hears the meaning. I was in my own (merciless) way pointing out that words matter. :)

An example: Let's suppose government A refers to countries B, C, and D as EVIL and then unilaterally attacks country B. Should that government be surprised when countries C and D start ramping up their arsenals and take an even stronger stance against country A? Words matter.

But on the CRUSH subject: It does bother me that Americans are disappointed in our olympic athleltes if they don't win more medals than any other country. Being incredibly good at something is not enough. If we aren't the BEST, then we are losers. The first president Bush said in one of HIS SotU speeches that the US would be the top ranked country in the world in Math and Science by the year ???? (I don't recall the year .. it doesn't matter .. we didn't reach the goal). It was a STUPID UNREACHABLE GOAL. It isn't about being number 1. It's about being competitive. It remains true that our world rankings in Math and Science (in grade school and particularly high school) is not anywhere NEAR the top in the world ... the relevant fact is that we are not competitive. Our universities are among the best in the world. So are some of our high schools. But, on average, our educational system is severely lacking. It needs to be fixed (and the blame for this does not lie with either political party). We need to understand that no child left behind means that EVERY CHILD WILL BE ABLE TO READ, DO MATH, ETC. ... it does not mean that every child will go to the 5th grade when their friends do. Some will be left behind to get the education that they will NEED to be successful in life. Social promotion is THE GREATEST EVIL in this country. It destroys lives. (Did I say we were getting off topic?) OK ... I'll stop.

Re: You Are Wrong About President Bush

Carl M — Fri, 26 Jan 2007 17:09:46 -0000

"But if you are second you are a very skilled person that just lost. I mean second is first, first looser."

The US is not even in the top 10 in the world in Education. What does that make us?

"Yes we are bent on being the best"

What does that mean? I mean .. to be the best in basketball I understand. You win more games. To be the best in education .. you score better on tests that show educational success. But .. just plain "being the best" ... what does that mean? (This is a serious question.)

Re: You Are Wrong About President Bush

Carl M — Sun, 28 Jan 2007 10:40:17 -0000

We need to fix the educational problems. I believe that we can get MUCH of the way there by simply eliminating SOCIAL promotion. Students go to grade 2 when they are READY to move to grade 2, etc. Like it or not, this will cost money. EITHER many students will take more than 12 years to complete grades 1-12 (which means that they will be in the system longer ... thus costing more) ... OR we will get more teachers (to make smaller classes .. which allows the students in those classes to get more individulalized attention which in turn leads to increased success) ... OR we will get BETTER teachers .. intelligent and highly trained to allow more students to succeed (such teachers will command higher salaries). To pretend that it will not take more money is just fooling yourself. We need to do something. We have adults in this country who can't spell. It's sad really.

I agree completely with the attitude: if you are going to do it, do it right. But being "THE BEST" is not always possible. MANY people play golf. They can't all be THE BEST -- are they all losers? Of course not. The attitude that anyone (or any country) that isn't THE BEST is a loser .. that's the attitude I find unhelpful. STRIVE to be as good as you can be in all things. Don't think of yourself as a loser if you are not THE BEST.

The problem comes from misunderstanding what I've just written. Too many people think that what I've just written is equivalent to "You're a winner .. don't let anyone tell you otherwise." NO .. all the self esteem crap .. is crap. If you're not trying to be the best you can be, then you should not be satisfied with yourself. But if you ARE trying .. and you are not THE BEST .. it's OK. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.

Re: Repost: America Is Dying

Carl M — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 07:53:17 -0000

OK, I'll bite. :)

Let me begin by pointing out that facts can be presented in a misleading way (even when the facts are true). Some examples: The population of China is almost 4.5 times the population of the US. So, the fact that they graduate more engineers is not surprising (though they do graduate engineers at roughly TWICE the per capita rate as we do -- that's the more honest number -- which is of course still plenty alarming). In any population there is variation. It is NEVER fair to compare a poor example from one group to good examples from another group (which is what seems to be done in "Washington D.C. has a higher infant mortality rate than many cities in India"). I believe that it takes away from the honesty of an argument when facts are told in misleadign ways like this. Let the numbers speak for themselves .. they have PLENTY to say.

I'm off to class, but I'll have more to say on this topic later (raise your hand if you're surprised at that). ANYONE? No? Ah ... well ... good. See you soon.

Re: Repost: America Is Dying

Carl M — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 11:31:44 -0000

"we’re going to start seeing a massive migration of the the country’s educated and wealthy to other, more fertile environments. It’s going to be the opposite of what happened when this nation began to thrive — rather than people coming here full of ambition, those who have it will be moving as fast as they can to Canada, Europe, and other forward-thinking places."

I think that you're partially right here. I'm not convinced that many Americans will leave the US for more fertile environments (though that will happen some). The larger issue (and I think that this will be a LARGE issue) is that we will no longer attract the best and the brightest from other countries. The educational crisis in this country has been disguised for many years by the fact that we have an enormous number of VERY TALENTED people coming here to work. They have a huge positive impact on the economy. When they no longer feel the need to come here (or when we simply cut way down on the number we LET come here -- since 9/11 we have cut down on the number of foreigners we allow into the country to go to school and to work), we will notice. It is when we must rely on our own home-grown talent that we will find it lacking. If we do not wake up to this fact SOON, it will be too late.

Once again, I put a large value on education (disclaimer for those who don't already know this .. I am a university mathematics professor). Some may argue that basic education is the responsibility of the parents. While I agree that it is VERY important (for the children) that parents take a strong role in their education, it is even MORE important (for society) that the children get a strong education. Is it reasonable to put the full burden of this basic education on parents who themselves dropped out of school? I don't think it is fair to those children to do so .. and .. I don't think it is fair to society to do so. We MUST take an interest in the education of all children.

Some think that vouchers are an answer ... pay extra money so families are more able to pay for private schools (which are presumed to be better). I STRONGLY disagree and have two main reasons for doing so. First: It isn't clear that the private schools are better. It is tough to compare a private school filled with children of parents who are relatively well educated and well off financially with a public school filled with children of parents who are (as a group) less well educated and less well off financially. Even if the quality of instruction is EXACTLY the same in the two places, the private school will have higher test scores based on the background of the students. But, my second reason is (in my opinion) even more important. When parents flee a public school based on a (possibly mistaken) perception that the private school give better instruction, they tend to cease to care about the public schools. THIS IS A TRAGEDY. Children that are better educated are much more likely to contribute in a positive way to society when they are adults. They are much less likely to partake in criminal activity. They are much less likely to have children as teenagers. They are much more likely to .. well I hope you get the idea. You don't have to be concerned about the children (though I would hope that you would be). It is better for SOCIETY for ALL children to have the best possible education. Should parents play a large role in this? Yes, of course. Should we RELY on all parents having the capacity to play a large role in this? No, of course not. It is too important to all of our society that ALL children have the opportunity for a strong education.

... OK .. I'll take a breath. ... someone else's turn now.

Re: Multiculturalism: Tested And Failed

Carl M — Mon, 29 Jan 2007 14:17:48 -0000

"First and foremost, that means rejecting whoever you used to be and taking pride in what you are now."

I'd argue that "rejecting" is too strong a word, but I do think that "E Pluribus Unum" remains a relevant philosophy.

Re: Multiculturalism: Tested And Failed

Carl M — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 07:54:04 -0000

There is no excuse for allowing people to refuse to live by our laws.

But that's got nothing to do with political correctness. Nothing (in my view) in political correctness says "let people do whatever they want .. who are we to say what's right and wrong." To me, political correctness has to do with the fact that racial and other offensive humor is not considered humor. That's the sort of thing that political correctness entails. Treat people with respect and as fellow human beings ... EVEN if they are different. THAT is political correctness. Don't believe the twisted definition of political coorrectness that you hear on FOX News.

I've already expressed my opinion on this forum that I believe rather strongly that there is a place for multiculturalism I believe that variety is wonderful, and whatever people do (or choose to believe) that does not impose on the rights of others is fine by me. This does not include breaking laws. ... Have to run to class .. but I'll have more to say later. :)

Re: Multiculturalism: Tested And Failed

Carl M — Tue, 30 Jan 2007 13:17:13 -0000

OK .. I'll not dwell on this stuff ... BUT

I think that most of the anger about multiculturalism is misplaced and misinterprets what multiculturalism means to most of those who value it. To be sure, there are those who take things too far, but multiculturalism does not (for most) say "all cultures are equally good and are to be equally valued by those in the dominant culture." (This is how FOX News would define it because this stance is so easy to attack.) As I said in my last post, people should be treated with respect and not be dismissed SIMPLY because they are different.

This is NOT to say that people choosing to move to the US should be allowed to continue to live according to the laws and traditions of their native lands when those behaviors clash with laws and expectations in American culture. That they should not be allowed to violate the LAWS of the US should be clear. That they should not expect to succeed when violating the EXPECTATIONS of American culture may be less clear, so let me give a couple of examples.

American culture typically expects people to be on time for meetings/appointments. If a foreign culture is more lax about this sort of thing and someone shows up an hour late to a job interview, they should not expect to get that job (they certainly wouldn't if I was doing the hiring). If someone moves here from a country where the native language is NOT English, then they should understand that they are moving to a country where the dominant (if not official) language IS English and that to maximize their chance of success in our society, they should learn English. They should not expect the institutions of our society to adjust to THEIR language.

I have no problem with those who maintain their native languages. I don't even care if they don't learn English. But, they should not EXPECT our institutions to bend to their language needs. In the spirit of a free economy, I don't care if some (non-government) businesses do cater to the language needs of those they serve. That's what the free market is all about. (I don't think I'd have a problem requiring all businesses to be able to conduct their busines in English when needed, but I'd have to think that through a little.)

I could go on and on, but I think I've expressed what I wanted to express.

Re: Liberals and Conservatives: An Amazingly Accurate Oversimplification

Carl M — Wed, 31 Jan 2007 13:38:14 -0000

The problem with this analysis is that it takes as a given that there are only TWO competing ideologies. I'm not convinced that this is accurate. I'm not even convinced that "conservatives" and "liberals" would agree on the definitions of "conservative" and "liberal." Indeed, I'm not even convinced that "liberals" agree among themselves on the meaning of "liberal" and I am CERTAIN that "conservatives" do not agree among themselves on the meaning of "conservative" (think NEOCONS).

Re: Religion and IQ: A Study and Graph

Carl M — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 11:32:19 -0000

I don't mean to be so argumentative, but I'm a little skeptical about the validity of the IQ numbers. WHICH particular IQ test was used? Has it been shown NOT to be culturally biased? ... etc ... It'd be more useful to see such a graph for the individuals within a single society. I'd not be surprised to see the same sort of slope, and it would be a more meaningful statement.

Re: Religion and IQ: A Study and Graph

Carl M — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:03:55 -0000

Converting from a test designed to measure mathematical ability (which can be taught) to an IQ score (which is supposed somehow to measure innate ability) is simply NOT valid. I'd need a lot more convincing that the IQ data shown is valid.

In the US, we define mild mental retardation as having an IQ between 50 and 70. Do we really believe that the four countries with averag IQ below 70 have populations the MAJORITY of which are AT LEAST MILDLY mentally retarded? I remain skeptical.

Once again: You simply CANNOT convert from a mathematics exam score (or from the score on another exam that measures learning) to an IQ score. I know how to do the calculations using the mean and standard deviation ... that's not the point. The point is that an exam that measures LEARNING does NOT measure IQ. It might measure the level of expectations of the teachers .. or the number of days in a school year .. or the ability of the teachers .. or any number of things that are NOT IQ.

Furthermore, IQ tests (and other tests) can be culturally biased. It might be that this is what the graph is showing. (I don't KNOW that this is what the graph is showing .. but I don't know that it ISN'T what the graph is showing.) It is FAR too wasy to lie with statistics .. one can take REAL looking data and see something that isn't real.

Here's an example I always use in my statistics classes. There is a fairly strong positive correlation between show size and reading ability in grade school children (grades 1-5). This is TRUE. Children with larger feet tend to read better than those with smaller feet. And it is actually a fairly STRONG correlation!

I'll let YOU tell me why this is true. And (I hope) you will see what I'm trying to say about the graph of Religion vs IQ -- There MIGHT be a lurking variable ... indeed, there may be many.

Re: Religion and IQ: A Study and Graph

Carl M — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:05:42 -0000

Arrrgh ... "shoe size" ... not "show size" .. there are a couple of other typos, but that one is important. Sorry.

Re: Religion and IQ: A Study and Graph

Carl M — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 12:48:27 -0000

To be fair. I didn't say that I doubt the validity of the claim. I said that I doubt the validity of the DATA that is purported to support the implied claim. I have no idea whether the implied claim is true or not. If I had to guess, I'd guess that a similar negative correlation would exist in a study that was more carefully designed.

I simply believe that if you want to make an argument, then you should be careful about the data you use to support it. The data in this case is suspect (at least I'm not at all convinced in its validity), and I think that using weak data weakens the case. I would be curious to see what data from within a single culture might show.

I do agree with Rick that measuring the importance of religion to an individual (or to a society) is not a trivial thing (though I don't think it is impossible).

Re: Religion and IQ: A Study and Graph

Carl M — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 14:26:32 -0000

It MAY be the case that there is a strong correlation between SAT scores and IQ scores for people within a single society (the US). This MAY be because high IQ is a (partial) cause of high SAT scores. This does NOT mean that the SAT and IQ tests measure the same thing (intelligence).

It also does not address any of my objections.

(My use of the word MAY is not meant to denote skepticism ... I believe it likely that both of those statements are in fact true.)

---

PS Isn't anyone skeptical about my assertion that there is a strong positive correlation between shoe size and reading ability in grade school children? It's TRUE, but I expect some skepticism (or a reason that you believe it to be true). :D It's a PUZZLE people! Take the challenge.

Re: Religion and IQ: A Study and Graph

Carl M — Fri, 02 Feb 2007 16:11:47 -0000

The answer to the puzzle is not nutrition. And, the correlation is VERY large. Nutrition contributes only a small amount to the effect (though it is a lurking variable and you get partial credit).

----

As for the SAT being an intelligence test ...

I don't deny that SAT scores are often misused. But, the SAT is NOT an intelligence test. Here is what the College Board claims about their own test:

Why does the SAT have the kinds of questions that it does?
The SAT was designed with questions that reflect or show your reasoning abilities, not just the amount of information you've accumulated during school. As an example, many math items can be answered by using complex equations, but they can also be answered correctly if you can reason through the problem. Reading passages don't just test that you can read but require extended reasoning in order to answer the questions related to the passage. This means that you have to be able to make inferences, assumptions, and interpretations based on the passage provided, in order to understand what the author is trying to say.

I would argue that reasoning abilities are NOT innate. If the SAT measured intelligence, there would be absolutely no point in studying for it (not if we define intelligence as something that is innate), but there are companies that really DO help students increase their SAT scores. (I think that this does not do the students any real favors, but their SAT scores do increase.) If intelligence is innate, then studying can not increase it. If on the other hand, IQ is NOT innate, but can be improved through study, appropriate exposure to ideas, etc ... then IQ itself is misused ALL THE TIME (as .. I would humbly suggest .. in the graph you initially linked to).

Re: Religion and IQ: A Study and Graph

Carl M — Sat, 03 Feb 2007 14:11:46 -0000

OK, I'll give the answer to the shoe size puzzle. In fact, it is NOT a statistical anomaly. You can go to ANY grade school in the WORLD that has a large enough number of students the ages of our 1st through 5th graders and you will find this correlation at EVERY SINGLE ONE of those schools. (If the school has only a few students, then a statistical anomaly could cause the correlation to be absent.)

The thing is that AGE is a lurking variable. Students in first grade have smaller feet than the fifth graders. AND, the fifth graders (with their bigger feet) READ better than the first graders. Is there cause and effect here? Do the big feet cause better reading ability? No, of course not. Greater age is associated with larger feet (in children) -- this is no mystery. AND, greater age is associated with better reading ability (in children) -- One would certainly HOPE so! It follows that there is a positive correlation between shoe size and reading ability.

Correlation is NOT causation. It is not unusual to find data with a strong correlation for which there is no cause and effect between the variables being looked at. There is often a lurking variable (something going on that effects BOTH variables being looked at). It's ALWAYS important to consider this possibility before jumping to a conclusion (even if the conclusion seems plausible).

Re: Stupid Design: Shooting Down The Idea That God Did Such A Great Job

Carl M — Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:57:18 -0000

OK ... this gets a LOL ...

"An entertainment complex in the middle of a sewage system."

Re: Vista: An Exercise In More Of The Same

Carl M — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 11:28:22 -0000

Well, it says that VISTA is a "jolt to the operating system."

Maybe you're just not grasping what they mean by "jolt."

Re: Music: Rodrigo y Gabriela

Carl M — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 14:06:08 -0000

Wow. (There are other videos too on YouTube .. they've got some serious talent.)

Re: Google Instead Of Local Applications?

Carl M — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 09:13:30 -0000

Well, I was going to point out that Google already HAS email (and a calendar program as well), but you beat me to it. The direction of the future is likely to follow the server-client model at least to an extent. (I don't think this is a surprise .. it seems that I've been hearing talk of this for MANY years now.) That many of the applications might be "free" (not counting the cost of seeing advertisements) is something that I'm not sure was anticipated 15 years ago.

Re: The Scott Adams Intelligent Universe Controversy

Carl M — Thu, 08 Feb 2007 17:25:10 -0000

caused = resulted in

There is no real distinction. The rock that fell onto the road in the landslide caused many people to be late for work. Substitute "resulted in" if you wish (substituting also "being" for "to be"), but the meaning doesn't change.

The whole point of that post (as he explained today) was that one can't argue about intelligence unless we DEFINE what we mean by intelligence.

"They weren’t "caused". They aren’t linked to the big bang in any way other than to say that the big bang must have happened for them to take place. "

That's what CAUSED means. They couldn't have happened without the big bang happening first.

As for the universe lacking sensory and storage organs .. that's just silly. YOUR eyes are part of the universe every bit as much as they are part of YOU. YOUR brain is a part of the universe every bit as much as it is part of you. So, the universe CERTAINLY has sensory organs.

The universe is CERTAINLY much more than a collection of randomness (though I would agree that this is how it started). I'll use you as an example again. YOU are part of the universe and YOU are not randomness.

To argue with him on any of this misses his point!

Re: The Scott Adams Intelligent Universe Controversy

Carl M — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 11:07:47 -0000

My hypothesis is that he's trying to do a few things.

(1) Make people think.

(2) Get opinions on ideas he's been thinking about.

(3) Stir up a little trouble. (He knows that people will misunderstand what he's saying and I think he loves it when people type furious replies.)

Anyway, I don't always agree with what he says, but it's nearly always fun to read (and some days is beyond funny).

Re: Music: Rodrigo y Gabriela

Carl M — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:49:21 -0000

Just ordered their CD/DVD. Shared the link with a friend who already knew of R&G and who shared this one back (Erik Mongrain):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUQzXQhAgvw

I found this one too (also Erik Mongrain):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbndgwfG22k

Re: Nick Gisburne’s Video About Quran Teachings

Carl M — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 18:38:34 -0000

I've been looking at the Quran to see if the quotes are accurate ...

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

That site has three translations in parallel. I've looked at only a few of the quotes. Some seem accurate (but of the sort you'd find in many religions -- believe or you'll be sorry ... that sort of thing). Some are inaccurate. 2:96 is completely distorted. His version: Jews are the greediest of all humankind. They'd like to live 1000 years. But they are going to hell. The closest translation:

And thou wilt find them greediest of mankind for life and (greedier) than the idolaters. (Each) one of them would like to be allowed to live a thousand years. And to live (a thousand years) would be no means remove him from the doom. Allah is Seer of what they do.

It may be that this passage refers to Jews (I didn't read back enough to be SURE from the context), but my understanding of the passage is: "you can run but you can't hide from God ... you can live 1000 years, but God is patient and if you have done wrong, you will be punished."

The guy seems to be pulling partial quotes in a deliberate attempt to put Islam in a bad light. One could do the same with any religion (that promises doom for the unbelievers).

Re: LaTeX

Carl M — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 07:25:17 -0000

TeX is really the language ... LaTeX is a document preparation system built upon the TeX language. A large amount of mathematical typesetting has been done using TeX (or LaTeX) for many years now. (I've been typesetting my exams in TeX for at least 14 years.)

TeX is a remarkable accomplishment. It is largely the work of a single programmer (Donald Knuth -- the one who wrote the series: The Art of Computer Programming). I'm not sure what the current version number is, but version 3 was the essentially final version .. bug fixes (which are RARE because there don't seem to be bugs) add a digit to pi. So, the FINAL .. PERFECT version of TeX will be version pi.

TeX was written to be easily extended (to handle typesetting chemistry .. or even music .. or crossword puzzles!). LaTeX is the extension that is most widely used. And, it adds some incredible power (though nothing that I need for exams). For a while I typeset my personal letters in TeX simply because it justifies both margins in a remarkably invisible way. It adjusts the spacing between words VERY SLIGHTLY .. and even the spacing between letters in a word .. so the line fills the width precisely .. without it looking as though there are artificial spaces. It also has a built in automatic hyphenation system that is second to none (it is LITERALLY the best .. I'm not just suggesting that it's good).

Re: LaTeX

Carl M — Mon, 19 Feb 2007 11:45:24 -0000

I realize that this has already cycled from view for more of your regular viewers, but I'm hoping that you are notified whenever a response is posted.

This is a nice page for a beginning LaTeXer.

http://www.ams.jhu.edu/~ers/learn-latex/

Re: Linux: Don’t Type “Y” — Just Press Enter

Carl M — Fri, 23 Feb 2007 07:56:53 -0000

As always when using default entries, be sure to LOOK at what the default choice is before you make it (at least if you are not in a familiar situation).

I was formatting 100 floppies I bought once (yes, there was a time you had to FORMAT floppies). I'd click on the icon for floppy on the desktop (this was on an AMIGA 2000 if anyone is curious), and hit enter twice (Format the disc? Y/n) (Are you SURE? Y/n).

Somewhere along the line I clicked on the icon for the hard drive. (When it didn't finish formatting in the expected time, my brain clicked into ALERT mode and I saw that my hard drive was being reformatted.)
Lesson learned. (Fortunately, hard drives weren't THAT big back then. :)

Re: Ubuntu/XGL Making OS X’s GUI Look Like Windows 95

Carl M — Sat, 24 Feb 2007 03:06:27 -0000

Very cool ... but Windows 95? You don't have to be MEAN! :)

Re: Tornadoes

Carl M — Sun, 04 Mar 2007 18:25:29 -0000

Daniel, just wanted to let you know that we made it through unhurt .. and with no damage. Much of the city is a mess right now (as is clear from the pictures at the link you provided). It's amazing how many work crews are here to repair things. They'll have the infrastructure back quickly, but it's going to be a while before things are back to normal around here.

Our thoughts are with those who lost family or had their homes damaged.

Re: Tornadoes

Carl M — Mon, 05 Mar 2007 19:28:11 -0000

Land lines are out in much of the city (still), and cell service was overloaded for a while. They've done a remarkable job getting power restored to hard hit areas. I mean REMARKABLE. It's incredible what large teams of repair crews can do when the actual area hit is fairly small. In a hurricane, the damage is so widespread it's simply impossible to get things repaired quickly. The area hit by the tornado here seems plenty large to residents in the city, but in comparison to a hurricane, it's a TINY area. Since there were so many utility poles that needed replacing, the electricity is repaired FIRST and then phone and cable can be restored to the affected areas. If they are as efficient as Georgia Power (and their helpers from across the southeast), the electronic infrastructure will be repaired quickly.

Re: Georgia Set To Study The Bible In Public School

Carl M — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 09:00:26 -0000

Absolutely right. As long as the courses are watched carefully to be sure that they are not pushing a religion (even in some subtle way), I've no problem with comparitive religions classes. (NOTE: One subtle way of pushing a religion is to talk ONLY about the Bible and not about other religious texts.)

Re: Disproving Stupid Things

Carl M — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 19:41:43 -0000

"Atheists trust science, but only to the degree that it can guarantee something (which is not much at all). "

Daniel .. this statement (true or not) (made by YOU above) IMPLIES that atheism is a belief SYSTEM. I believe in atoms. I believe that there is NOT a flying spaghetti monster. These are BELIEFS. I might be wrong in both cases (though I think I'm pretty safe). Anyway, my point is that you can't make a statement like the one I quoted AND assert that atheism is not a belief SYSTEM. Here's another quote:

"Comparing the atheist’s reverence for logic and science to a steadfast belief in an invisible omnipotent being that kills with divine mercy is wholly inaccurate. They aren’t even in the same sport, let alone the same ballpark."

One can compare two different things. And, one can even call two ENORMOUSLY DIFFERENT belief systems, belief systems. This does not mean that they are equivalent or that they both rely on the same logic to form the beliefs. Some believe in God because they believe a God to be self evident. Others do NOT believe in God because they believe that there is no evidence for a God and they do not choose to believe in things for which there is no evidence. I guess NOT believing in God would be considered agnosticism. Still others believe that there is NO God. I suppose these are the athiests. Surely their belief that there is no God is a belief.

"You don’t have beliefs in things you don’t believe in. If you insist on doing so then you’ve completely diluted the meaning of belief. Beliefs are positive, and their absence does *not* indicate the presence of the opposite."

I'm not sure that Arik is wrong here, Daniel. You are right that NOT believing in something is not the same as BELIEVING the opposite of that something. But, you are mistaken in taking this to mean that it is IMPOSSIBLE to believe the opposite of something.

An example (TOOTH FAIRY SPOILER ALERT):

Some children believe in a tooth fairy. Other children (some of whom once believed in the tooth fairy) believe that there is no tooth fairy (or more precisely .. and to put it into a POSITIVE belief to fit your definition of belief .. they believe that the person putting the money under their pillow is their mother or father). It's possible that there is an agnostic middle ground here too .. children who have no hypothesis strong enough to be called a belief about how the tooth is transformed into cash. My guess is that there are few agnostics in this case. It's pretty much all BELIEVERS in one thing or the other.

Re: The Definition Of Atheism, And Why It Is NOT A Belief

Carl M — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 07:47:03 -0000

"Commonly used and published definitions are indeed unfortunately insufficient and downright inaccurate."

I've stayed out of this thread because it is clearly just a semantic argument and has nothing to do with any real philosophical position on anything. But, I have to reply to the line I quoted (not to pick on Carol Smith, but because I think it captures Daniel's feelings too).

If I had to come up with a definition of what a definition is ... (that's what this thread is really about) ... I'd say something like: A word means what the world uses it to mean -- PARTICULARLY if this also coincides with the dictionary definition. It's really as simple as that.

It may be that we want a single word to convey more than it does (and might therefore claim that the definition is insufficient), but perhaps we just need modifiers or full sentences to state what we want to state rather than a single word. As for common usage and dictionary definitions being DOWNRIGHT INACCURATE ... well ... that seems entirely absurd (though I'm willing to listen to arguments why I'm wrong about this). (I understand the prefix "a", but the origin of a word is not the same thing as it's current definition .. and it's current definition is the one that ought to be used if you want others to understand the nuances of what you are saying.)

The thing that puzzles me about Daniel's stubborn position on this is that in an earlier thread on the definition of hacker, he took the side of current usage (though it didn't fit his personal definition).

---

On another note, I don't understand why so many dislike the use of the word belief in a "negative" sense. I BELIEVE that there is no tooth fairy. REALLY. I do. Maybe this is better. I believe that the sentence "There is no tooth fairy" is TRUE. Does making it a positive like that make it better? The stance taken by some seems to be that they don't believe ANYTHING. This becomes a semantic argument again (which I find tedious since people seem so content to use their own definitions). Indeed, I suspect that the TWO issues in this thread boil down to differing definitions of atheism and belief.

Re: Encrypted Blog Copyrights?

Carl M — Tue, 13 Mar 2007 13:33:37 -0000

I suspect that you're making too big a deal out of this. You could simply publish the idea OPENLY on your blog to prove when you had the idea. Still .. I've got copies of your stuff.

Re: The Definition Of Atheism, And Why It Is NOT A Belief

Carl M — Thu, 15 Mar 2007 08:29:40 -0000

An atheist doesn't believe in atheism. An atheist believes that there is no God. I think that your original premise was that agnosticism was a more logically tenable position. You got distracted by Arik's statement that Atheism is a belief system. I took the time to look up the relevant words:

atheism: the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

agnosticism: (religious sense) the belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.

belief: confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately suceptible to rigorous proof.

These are the definitions (of course there are variations of each of these in different dictionaries, but I think that I've given the standard definitions here). Where things went astray (in my opinion) is when people wanted to choose their own meanings for these words. One of the keys to effective communication is to use standard definitions of words. That was my only point in any of this.

Interestingly, I think that MOST people fit the definition of agnosticism given above. I include in this group those who are VERY religious and those who are not at all religious. Agnosticism is separate from both religion and atheism. One can believe that God exists and be agnostic. One can believe that there is no God and be agnostic. Fun with semantics. (Don't get me started.)

Re: My Grandfather

Carl M — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:25:47 -0000

Thanks for sharing. Your story reminded me of my own grandfather (who passed away about 20 years ago). He too was fascinated by the wonders of technology. Back then I used to love WORDSEARCH puzzles and he used to send me the ones from his paper. When I got my first computer (Coleco ADAM), I wrote a BASIC program to allow you to enter a wordsearch puzzle. It would display the puzzle on the screen. Then you could enter a word and the program would find it in the grid and display the letters for that word in a different color. My grandfather thought that was amazing. :) Thanks for making me think again of my own grandfather and the memories I have with him. I'm sorry for your loss, but he lives on in your memories.

Re: Why Some People Don’t Learn Anything In College

Carl M — Sat, 24 Mar 2007 14:56:14 -0000

Arik,

I don't think that Daniel was blaming the parents (or teachers). He is trying to figure out how to unlock the enormous talent in Americans that is WASTED because they lack curiosity and desire to learn. I would not put all the pressure on parents and teachers, but Daniel is exactly right. The most frustrating things that university professors see in their students is a lack of desire to learn. Far too many students want a diploma .. not knowledge. As an example ... I teach mathematics. Far too few of our students have a curiosity to learn the WHY behind an idea. They are content to (try to) memorize the mechanics of a calculation. This MAY be enough to get them through an exam .. and perhaps even a course, but they are unlikely to take anything from the course. I try to talk about the WHY's in class and am delighted when a student pursues those WHY's outside class. Professors discuss this all the time. We realize that we were not "typical" students, but we are stunned and dismayed by the lack of any apparent desire to learn.

What is the solution? Well, there needs to be a cultural shift. Students need to value education (this is not universal across all American cultures). Parents need to value educaiton. Teachers and administrators need to value education. I believe that the GREATEST evil in the US is social promotion in school. A student gets a year older, so they progress to the next year of grade school (regardless of whether they have learned the material in their current grade). This sets them up for failure in at least two ways. They don't see any extra reward for studying and learning (everyone moves on) -- so they don't develop the understanding that hard work is IMPORTANT. And, they will find it harder and harder to learn new material as they progress through grades without learning the prior material. How can a student learn high school science if they can't read? How can a student learn high school mathematics when they don't know what (9)-(-2) or (-2)^4 or ... are?

Students must be held accountable. Then we need to hold schools, teachers, and parents accountable.

Re: Dumping OS X

Carl M — Sun, 01 Apr 2007 07:44:07 -0000

:)

Be sure to go to gmail (today) to learn about their paper archive option. Also, Google has a new FREE in-home wireless internet product: TiSP. Very Cool! Fortunately they aren't biased and will continue to support MACs!

Re: The Video That Creationists Don’t Want You To See

Carl M — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 07:26:44 -0000

There was a follow-up video.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9zwbhAXe5yk

Re: Dumping OS X

Carl M — Mon, 02 Apr 2007 10:40:01 -0000

Daniel, you could have been more convincing if you hadn't gone quite so overboard (or if you reluctantly switched to Windows)(or if you switched full time to Linux).

Anyway, I hope that everyone had a chance to see the jokes that Google had yesterday. The TiSP was obviously a joke, but they had several active links you could follow for more information -- quite humerous. I thought that the printed email from Gmail was funnier.

And, if we're bidding, I'll offer $101.

Re: Why Humans Have So Much Trouble Being Happy

Carl M — Thu, 05 Apr 2007 11:17:30 -0000

An interesting video. There is also (as you know) a school of thought that says that happiness depends less on your state of being than on your perception of the CHANGE in your state of being. That is .. if your life seems to be IMPROVING, then you will tend to be happy. If it seems to be DECLINING, then you will tend to be unhappy.

Re: This Video Should Scare You

Carl M — Fri, 06 Apr 2007 17:33:32 -0000

How about this:

Though wars often SEEM to be about ideology, they are usually about something more primal -- basic needs for resources. Water is abundant on this planet, but most of it has until recently been unusable for drinking .. it's full of salt. Removing that salt is becoming less expensive and easier. I predict that not so far in the future, water will not be a scarce resource anywhere it is needed. I predict that not so far in the future, most known diseases will be conquered. (Use one of those $1000 computers whose calculating ability exceeds the entire human race.) I predict that not so far in the future energy problems will be a thing of the past (this is the prediction I am least confident in). I predict that when people are not scratching for survival, it will not be so easy for those with evil intent to sway the masses to their side. I don't think that the future is so bleak.

---

PS At least one thing in the video was wrong. Even if technological knowledge doubles every two years, it doesn't mean that half of what is learned in ones freshman year is outdated by the junior year. This just doesn't follow logically from the premise.

Re: Secure Your Site With ROT26 Encryption

Carl M — Thu, 12 Apr 2007 07:34:07 -0000

Well, my browser doesn't support decoding ROT26 ... so now all of your posts just look like gibberish! Perhaps surprisingly, this hasn't lessened their interest, so I will remain a loyal visitor to the blog.

Re: Why Atheists Should Consider Discussing Religion With Their Moderately Religious Friends

Carl M — Tue, 17 Apr 2007 19:34:04 -0000

At the risk of being accused by those on both sides of this issue of missing the point, let me point out that people have "risen from the dead" many times in history .. indeed it happens all the time. In recent years, medical science has gotten quite good at bringing people back from "death." They even have little gadgets in airports and shopping malls so that everyone has the chance to bring people back from the dead. There are also cases of people being declared dead and then turning out to be alive (in morgues and even in coffins). Additionally, I'm willing to bet that there have been virgin births in the US within the past century. I'd rather not go into the details of how this could happen without any miracles .. but imagine a couple doing everything BUT .. and .. well .. it's actually possible -- and with modern techniques, it's quite a simple medical procedure. So, (if we assume that there IS free will) while anyone is free to believe or not believe whatever they wish, it is NOT true that the idea of the dead coming to life and virgin births are absurd.

Re: A Logical Approach To Gun Laws

Carl M — Fri, 20 Apr 2007 22:30:37 -0000

My concern about teachers (or students) having guns is that while events like the one we just saw might be (or would LIKELY be) put to a stop before the death toll reached 30, I fear that there would be far more single death events. I fear that the net effect would be additional deaths.

I know about the statistics for isolated communities with large gun ownership. And, I don't doubt that there are no killing sprees in such places. But the sample is too small to draw conclusions. After all, in a country the size of the US, we (thankfully) have only rare events like the recent one at VT. The fact that an isolated community hasn't had a crazed individual bent on murder, doesn't mean that other communities wouldn't.

Simply put, I am not convinced that widespread gun ownership is in the best interests of the citizens of the US. I think that we'd have MORE gun related deaths than we have now. What we need to do is somehow get our citizens to value human life.

Re: The Primary Law of Intelligent Immigration Policy

Carl M — Sun, 22 Apr 2007 15:59:54 -0000

It isn't as simple as that.

Group A comes because there are freedoms of expression. Group B comes because there is freedom of religion. Group C comes because there are higher paying jobs here.

People who come to freely express themselves probably don't interfere too much with the status quo. Neither do those who come to freely practice their religion. But, if too many come seeking higher paying jobs, the laws of supply and demand kick in. A too rapid influx of people seeking jobs (at the current level of job availability) result in more competition for those jobs which will result in (in many cases) lower pay. Of course job availability will grow as the population grows (we'll need more restaurants, groceries, etc.), but there is a time lag. So, if the population growth is TOO fast, the economy can't absorb the influx without being impacted. So, unless you were aiming at "we need to control the rate of immigration so we can remain attractive to future potential immigrants (and to those already here)," I'll have to disagree with you.

Re: The Sun Is The Center Of The Universe (And The Hottest Star, Too)

Carl M — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 14:03:05 -0000

Suppose she was thinking of the solar system and was thinking of Jupiter as a failed star?

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/jupiter...

(Somehow I don't think that someone who pondered the fact that Jupiter is in some sense a failed star [off by "only" a factor of 100 or so] would confuse the solar system with the universe.)

Re: Ron Paul on Security and Liberty

Carl M — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 17:52:48 -0000

Once again, I will make two points:

(1) If students at VT had guns, then most likely the number of lives lost in that incident would have been fewer.

(2) If students across the country had guns, then I am fairly certain that there would be MORE gun related deaths (in ones and twos) across the country. My fear is that this number would be LARGER than the number of lives saved in incidents like the one at VT.

If you are willing to look at the big picture, it is not as simple as Mr. Paul and others would like you to believe.

Re: Ron Paul on Security and Liberty

Carl M — Sat, 28 Apr 2007 11:59:44 -0000

Pat, you're right. I'm speculating. I never claimed to be doing more. I have a problem with those who assert that a fully armed citizenry would reduce gun deaths WITHOUT admiting that they too are speculating.

I don't want to get into a full blown debate on gun control here -- and I do not assert that we should prohibit gun ownership. I do believe that there are limits that should be placed on the types of guns and ammunition that can be legally owned. (There are.) I believe that there should be limits placed on which individuals should be permitted to own guns. (There are.) I believe that gun owners should be trained in gun safety and that the careless use of a firearm should be treated as a very serious criminal act. I believe that those who use guns in the commission of a crime should be punished FAR more severely than they currently are. That would be a good start and may be enough.

My point is very simple. The issue is NOT black and white. Those who believe that 100% gun ownership wouldn't increase the number of accidental deaths and crimes (murders) of passion are kidding themselves. To guess at the extent of this increase would be speculation, but to assert that there would be no increase is folly.

Re: s/he

Carl M — Wed, 02 May 2007 14:40:39 -0000

I hate "s/he" (because it is impossible to read) and "he/she" (for essentially the same reason). But, I've no problem with "he or she." For years I made the argument that he was a neuter pronoun when used as such. But, the fact is, it isn't really. So, I use "he or she," "him or her," and "his or hers." To say that this is insulting to women is just silly. It isn't an attempt to say that women are 50% of whatever group is being discussed. It is about the fact that SOME of the people being talked about are not appropriately described using the masculine pronoun.

The writers who use "she" throughout their writing are not being politically correct. They're making a point. We (men) don't HEAR the word "he" .. and just think that it refers to people (like us). We may even BELIEVE that it is a gender neutral word. But, when we come across writing that uses ONLY "she" we are taken aback and think that it is inappropriate. The author would AGREE that it is inappropriate and is merely making the point that it is also inappropriate to use only "he."

Generations of children had their views of life's possibilities shaped in part by the words people used to describe people in various professions (doctors = he, nurses = she, bosses = he, secretaries = she, etc.). Is it really so hard to say an extra couple of words once in a while?

Re: s/he

Carl M — Wed, 02 May 2007 22:38:38 -0000

Let me use this opportunity to say that Greg Egan is a GREAT author -- particularly if you like mathematics, physics, and computer science. Science Fiction of TOP quality!

Re: The Best Thing I’ve Ever Seen On YouTube

Carl M — Sat, 05 May 2007 15:36:42 -0000

Nice piece. Would be a great launching point for a discussion.

Re: The Most Beautiful Equation?

Carl M — Sat, 05 May 2007 20:32:00 -0000

I like that equation (though with the 1 on the other side of the equation so it ends 1 = 0). When written in the other fashion it combines 5 VERY important mathematical constants. But it's a rather trivial equation which doesn't really have too much to say about the world. Maxwell's equations are indeed beautiful.

Re: A Heart-Warming Story (There Are Too Few)

Carl M — Sat, 05 May 2007 20:32:41 -0000

bad link?

Re: Math and Programming

Carl M — Sat, 05 May 2007 21:03:30 -0000

I will admit that I didn't read the entire post, but I disagree with most of what I read.

Full disclosure: I am a college mathematics professor.

If geometry is taught as being about MEMORIZING proofs, then it is being taught wrong. If trigonometry is being taught as being about MEMORIZING trig identities (at least if this is the primary thing it is about), then it is being taught wrong. We had a graduation ceremony today and a programmer (someone who has had such a positive experience at a summer internship that the company is prepared to pay his way through grad school) came to me to tell me that he appreciated my ability to translate math into English .. and make things MAKE SENSE to him. The topic that he has found most important in his work (he does graphics programming -- and has done some game sorts of things) was trig (and I'm sure that he did not mean the identities). Anyway, the list of topics that the author of the linked post came up with may have worked for him AFTER the fact, but is NOT appropriate as a general curriculum.

Mathematics instruction in the US could use a LOT of improvement, but to think that this guy has the answers is absurd. In fact, he has missed the most important problem with mathematics instruction (and seems to have bought into it). He talked about Calculus being about memorization: "Useful stuff, but the exact details involve a lot of memorization and a lot of tedium ..."

Mathematics is NOT about memorization.

Let me repeat that.

MATHEMATICS IS NOT ABOUT MEMORIZATION. Anyone who teaches it that way is teaching it wrong. Of course memorizing the multiplication tables (up to 9x9) is important (even in the days of calculators), but addition, subtraction, multiplication, etc. are not mathematics. They are arithmetic. Arithmetic is used in support of mathematics.

Let me make another broad statement. Mathematics is not about calculation. Of course there are a lot of calculations made in a mathematics class, but they are NOT mathematics. Calculations SUPPORT mathematics, but are not mathematics. Let me give a very basic example. Knowing that three times two is six is a calculation. Knowing that a rectangle that is three units long and two units wide has an area of six square units is mathematics. Knowing how to compute integrals is a calculation. Knowing how to USE integrals is mathematics.

It's true that calculators can do multiplication and division. It's also true (I believe) that it is important to learn how to do these calculations by hand. WHY? Because one of the most important life skills (not just for programmers, but for EVERYONE) is estimation. Which is a better deal? The 64 ounce size at $2.79 or the 100 ounce size at $3.99? You don't need exact answers to be able to compare these.

Anyway, I'm preparing for a trip and don't have time to fully respond to the post, but I'd be curious what others think on this topic.

Re: A Heart-Warming Story (There Are Too Few)

Carl M — Sat, 05 May 2007 21:05:10 -0000

OK, I could have worked harder to get the link to work.

Re: The Most Beautiful Equation?

Carl M — Sun, 06 May 2007 06:46:24 -0000

Most of the examples people have used to demonstrate the Golden ratio in art are "almosts." Papers have been written about the apparent myth that artists used it consciously in their work. The fact is, if you look at a lot of data (say many many works of art and architecture), you can find "almost" any ratio you want somewhere. Nonetheless, the series 1,1,2,3,5,8,13,... whose ratios approach the Golden ratio does come up in surprising places (in nature and mathematics) and is indeed beautiful.

Re: Why Education Matters More Than Most Realize

Carl M — Sun, 06 May 2007 06:47:53 -0000

Indeed.

Re: Why Education Matters More Than Most Realize

Carl M — Tue, 08 May 2007 13:14:50 -0000

Part of the process of discovery is the LEARNING how to discover. Instant programming with facts and knowledge will not necessarily lead to new discoveries.

Re: The iPhone Will Dominate, But Not Because Of Features/Functionality

Carl M — Thu, 10 May 2007 17:17:04 -0000

Apple will continue to dominate because they UNDERSTAND ease of use. And, they are not content with the current state of the art. They continue to PUSH forward. Take a look:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/apple/next-gen-ipod-...

Re: The Ultimate Creationist Quote

Carl M — Fri, 11 May 2007 13:30:55 -0000

I've heard this entropy argument before, but I've never seen the user admit that complexity can increase as long as there is energy entering the system. Perhaps this guy doesn't know about the sun.

There's a fun little experiment you can try at home. I've collected a bunch of the little tabs from the top of soda cans. If they are put into a bowl randomly, they are in random positions (no surprise). If you shake the bowl (with a pretty wide range of force levels), the tabs align with one another. The system spontaneously becomes more ordered. No conscious thought is needed .. just a little energy.

Re: How Many American’s View Atheism

Carl M — Fri, 11 May 2007 20:22:29 -0000

It may be that "many" Americans feel as this letter writer feels, but I would be willing to bet that it is a VERY small percentage who have such an extreme view. I would also bet that if this person was asked about terrorism, she'd have some fun things to say about religions other than Christianity (note her list of the religions you are free to follow). I know quite a few extremely religious people. Some are good people; some are not. Some follow the teachings of their religion; others do not. I would point out that this woman does not follow the teachings of Christianity (which speaks of loving ones neighbor and not judging others). I would certainly not take her word that the majority of Americans would love to see the athiests kicked out of America. It simply isn't true.

I find it amazing that she seems to believe that state sanctioned prayer in school can turn a country around. It is curious that many of the most religious people I know believe that there should be no such state sanctioned prayer in school. To assert that it is only the athiests who believe in the separation of church and state is also wrong. Surely, we can see that this is a letter written by an ignorant bigot. While it is true that there are far too many ignorant bigots in the world, it is also true that we should not take their rants as being anything more than the rants of ignorant bigots.

Re: The iPhone Will Dominate, But Not Because Of Features/Functionality

Carl M — Fri, 11 May 2007 20:27:09 -0000

I remember my first encounter with an iPod. I was in the Apple store in NYC (several years ago, but not so early in the iPod craze). I was curious whether the click wheel was easy to use (it didn't seem to me that it would be from the descriptions I'd seen). I was amazed. The interface was NATURAL. Not just easy to use ... NATURAL. There is a difference. I was EXPECTING a clumsy interface. I had not been brainwashed. What I saw was great.

Still, I didn't get an iPod until podcasts came out. That was the killer-ap for me.

Re: Chess Hotties

Carl M — Sat, 12 May 2007 09:16:13 -0000

I like the Bosnia Herzegovina head hold (which appears at least twice).

Re: Your Papers, Sir?

Carl M — Sat, 12 May 2007 09:23:28 -0000

I don't mean to be ignorant here, but could you explain why this is a problem? The government already keeps track of all of this information (if you include driver's license info). Georgia has had a fingerprint encoded on the driver's license for years. Explain to me why having biometric information on IDs is a bad thing. Don't tell me how it could be abused. Tell me why it is intrinsically bad. How is this anti-American? We already need such ID to drive a car and to travel on an airplane. Are these the "ordinary activities" that are being pointed to in the quote? I honestly have an open mind on this if you can give a good argument that IDs are bad.

Re: Your Papers, Sir?

Carl M — Sat, 12 May 2007 12:51:27 -0000

Arguments about what the Founding Fathers may or may not have wanted don't always work. They didn't have drivers licenses. We do. This is not a bad thing. If you believe (as you have confirmed) that illegal aliens should be handed to the INS, how do you tell if someone is or is not an illegal alien?

I am GLAD that when someone endangers lives in Florida by breaking traffic laws this information is shared with his or her home state and insurance company. In a perfect world, bad drivers would eventually lose their driving privileges (or at the very least would be forced to pay their fair share of the insurance premiums). This is enabled by the communication you talked about.

I will agree that the things that our current administration is doing in the name of security is WAY over the line and should be curtailed. I would also hope that a national ID / database would hold only relevant information (and would fight against abuses). I do understand that some future administration's definition of relevant may not match mine, so safeguards clearly need to be put into place. But, you've hinted at how a national ID / database could be abused .. not why it is intrinsically bad.

I posed the question earlier about how one determines if someone is an illegal alien (or even worse - a terrorist). Current IDs are reletively easy to forge, and the lack of national standards means that I could show you three (entirely different) IDs each of which purports to be a Wyoming drivers license and you might not have a clue which one (if any) was the real one. Of course it would be dangerous if we assumed that a standardized ID (even with high-tech security built in) couldn't be forged, but that's not an argument for not trying to improve on the current system. We already require a passport for re-entry into the US from anywhere outside the US. How exactly will a National ID be worse?

I just think that we as a citizenry need to pick our battles. The Patriot Act has stripped US citizens of REAL RIGHTS. I don't see how a National ID card / database (if used appropriately) does this.

Re: Your Papers, Sir?

Carl M — Sat, 12 May 2007 14:13:50 -0000

Well, let's start with the drivers license. To be at all effective, it must include some way of linking the document to ME (like a photo and basic information like hair color, eye color, age, weight, so that someone can't just slap their photo on my card - in other words, it should include some biometric information) so I can't just use a friend's license if mine is taken away. I don't think that anyone REALLY argues with this (except for those with the slippery-slope fears). In any case, we've had such driver's licenses for longer than I've been driving (I've been driving for 30 years or so .. I have no idea how long we've had such licenses). Implicit in the need for certification of driving ability is the need for some sort of document (license), and as I said, having certain biometric information linked to the license so that someone else can't use it simply makes sense.

There are laws in every state that require that people be a certain age to purchase certain products (alcohol, tobacco, etc.). How is this age verified? We use driver's licenses to do this (though people can instead get a state ID card if they cannot get or do not wish to get a driver's license). These seem to me to be to be PERFECTLY reasonable uses of an ID. In fact, implicit in the existence of such laws is the need for some sort of way to document age. Of course, if the driver's license is to be used as an ID in this manner, it ought to be difficult to forge and immediately recognizable to those looking at it. I won't address the forging issue, but as I stated before, every state has its own format for driver's licenses. Why not make them uniform so that even an out-of-state card is immediately recognizable?

I still do not see how a uniform standard for licenses (this is what the National ID is by the way - a national standard for drivers licenses and state IDs) is a bad thing. We already have licenses. We already have passports. I honestly don't see how the use of a national standard is relinquishing ANY freedom (beyond those given up in accepting the need for a driver's license and passport). What is the new impingement on my freedom? I just don't see it.

Once again, I say that we must choose our battles wisely.

Re: Your Papers, Sir?

Carl M — Sat, 12 May 2007 23:28:19 -0000

Sorry, but after reading both of those articles, I see no reason for panic. What I see in them is (IMHO) alarmist propaganda. Nothing he said in either article addresses any of my points. (Not that he was writing in response to my points, but having read them, I am no closer to understanding why my arguments fall short of the mark.)

Re: Your Papers, Sir?

Carl M — Sun, 13 May 2007 09:19:29 -0000

We HAVE passports. We have STATE driver's licenses that are used as ID nationwide (so someone residing in New Jersey can rent a car or buy a beer when vacationing in Florida). Not everyone who has been given the responsibility to check IDs (when selling beer for example) has been properly trained to recognize all of the varous IDs from the various states. It doesn't take a genius to think "gosh, wouldn't it make sense to use a uniform format and standard for these IDs?" Could the government abuse the information that is in the ID databases? Well, of course. Could they do this already? Well, of course. (SECRET: Don't tell anyone, but the government has access to an enormous amount of information already.) (((SUPER SECRET: So do all of us.)))

I see a huge advantage to a uniform form of ID. I see NO _new_ disadvantages. I honestly just don't get the fuss.

Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty. We must always remain vigilant to ensure that our government (or anyone else) does not abuse its power. Trust but verify. We must also not erect artificial restraints because of the fear of POTENTIAL abuse.

Once again, I must say this: The Patriot Act (and some of the governmental actions that have gone BEYOND even what is provided for in the Patriot Act) has in a very real way lessened the liberties that make the US what it is (or was). A national standard for IDs (even with a big database) holds the POTENTIAL for abuse. But, it is NOT intrinsically bad. Just about EVERYTHING holds the potential for abuse. If we eliminated from our society everything that COULD be abused, we'd be left with very little.

Daniel, I know that you and I disagree about gun ownership. If I understand your previous posts, it seems that you believe that VERY widespread gun ownership would cut down on violent crime. I have serious doubts about this. My reason? It seems to me that there are a lot of people out there who should not be trusted with the power of a handgun. It is impossible to keep a tight watch on EVERYONE, so it isn't clear what is in place to keep a nutcase from killing a few people in a murder-suicide. It happens too often already. If MORE people owned guns, it seems to me that it would happen more often. Maybe I'm wrong. I do acknowledge that there are arguments to be made on the other side that armed robbery would likely decrease if the expectation was that the victim would also be armed. I don't know the answer to the gun ownership issue. I have not argued for a ban, but I don't think that widespread ownership should be encouraged either (for reasons given in an earlier post). My point here is that you believe that the POTENTIAL ABUSE of gun ownership is outweighed by the benefits (and seems to raise no red flag). So, I'm puzzled why the POTENTIAL ABUSE of a uniform ID (even with a database) raises the enormous red flag it seems to raise for you (and others).

Re: Your Papers, Sir?

Carl M — Sun, 13 May 2007 12:21:57 -0000

"The problem is that the potential downsides are far more dangerous than the benefits are helpful." I respect your position, but disagree (though believe that we must always remain vigilant).

PS There was a great episode of Penn and Teller's Bull**** recently on the subject of patriotism. It's a must see. (The title was about Mount Rushmore, but it was a story about patriotism.)

Re: Judging Risk Based On Genetic Testing

Carl M — Sun, 13 May 2007 19:24:53 -0000

This is a great example of how alarmist propaganda works. (The current Bush administration was great at this before the current Iraq war.) You didn't SAY that the National ID system would have this sort of information included in it, you just posed an innocent question: What if?

Well, I'd fight hard against some (most) of the things you list. I'd consider them abuses.

I'm not going to go through your list point by point, but I will mention your insurance example, since this has LONG been discussed as a place of potential abuse (and one which has NOTHING at all to do with a National ID system). I believe that the purpose of insurance is to spread risk. (And, I'll add in passing that I think that this is a good thing.) I do not believe that rates should be higher for those with higher genetic risk factors (though I am in favor of waiting periods for those who go without insurance until they suddenly need it). On the other hand, if someone has a history of driving violations, they CERTAINLY should pay more in auto insurance. (I expect that this last sentence will spawn some hypotheticals.)

Re: Judging Risk Based On Genetic Testing

Carl M — Mon, 14 May 2007 06:48:56 -0000

As sci-fi, it's an interesting concept .. and one that has been pretty well explored in the genre. I was pretty sure that you were not TRYING to link the idea to the National ID system, but it was too good an example of how extremists "almost" make arguments linking two unrelated things. The reader is sometimes left with the impression that there is a link.

Re: How I Search For Understanding: An Apology

Carl M — Tue, 15 May 2007 07:08:18 -0000

The regular readers of your blog already understand this and respect your quest for understanding. Forgive us if we don't tiptoe around our replies and get right to the point. It makes for more efficient communication -- even if it assumes that everyone has an open mind and that nobody has a fragile ego. (That seems to be a pretty safe assumption here.)

That being said, I hope that you no longer believe that being right is boring.

Re: Gallup Poll Shows Education Linked To Religious Belief

Carl M — Sat, 26 May 2007 15:48:07 -0000

Those aren't the only options.

OPTION 3: One of the primary goals of education is to produce individuals who can (and are willing to) think on their own. It encourages students to NOT take things as given (including what they are told by their teachers) but to judge the liklihood of the truth of a proposition based on reason and logic. Furthermore, even when something is EXTREMELY likely to be true, education encourages people to keep an open mind so that future evidence is not discarded simply because it contradicts existing views on the subject. (Education encourages us to judge the liklihood of truth, not absolute truth.) In other words, education works AGAINST faith based KNOWLEDGE. Education doesn't necessarily have anything directly to say about the Bible in particular. Furthermore, of those who are religious (evenly devout in their religious beliefs), I would suspect that those who have more education are also typically those who have been exposed to more interpretations of the Bible. They are more likely to see that the "literal" truth of the Bible is not separate from its context and that the "literal" truth is subject to interpretation.

That being said, I believe that pi is not equal to 3. And as an example of the INTERPRETATION of even seemingly clear literal statements, I give you:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2...

So, we have OPTION 4: Not everyone has the same meaning for "literal" in this context.

Re: Gallup Poll Shows Education Linked To Religious Belief

Carl M — Sun, 27 May 2007 15:24:06 -0000

"I think your third option is included in my second option. That approach to things is what I referred to as perspective."

Right, but I was making the point that your second option was way too specific to allow for a broad application to a variety of viewpoints.

Re: Why You Should Vote For Ron Paul [Video]

Carl M — Mon, 28 May 2007 10:43:41 -0000

I'll say it. We should NOT eliminate income tax. (Not that I disagree that our government spends FAR too much and often spends it on the wrong things.)

Re: Did Jesus Teach Racism? [Matthew 15:23]

Carl M — Wed, 30 May 2007 14:34:43 -0000

IF this is an accurate translation and interpretation (which it may or may not be - meaning is not distinct from context), it is certainly not the only place in the Bible that Jesus is shown as extending kindness (or encouraging the extending of kindness). Your conclusion "Jesus didn't say anything ..." does not follow from your interpretation of this particular phrase.

(Think of me as a guardian of logic.)

Re: Did Jesus Teach Racism? [Matthew 15:23]

Carl M — Wed, 30 May 2007 14:43:31 -0000

From the commentary of the passage you linked to:

Likewise, the command to love one's neighbor as oneself (Lev 19:18; compare Lev 19:34; Mt 5:43; Rom 13:9) expresses a general principle, though its original context applied it to a more specific situation.

It appears that you are not claiming anything that isn't already known.

--- I will resist the urge to point out that we have a president who seems not to understand that "human rights" apply to all humans. (somehow the passage you quoted -- and your interpretation of it -- made me think of this)

Re: A Simple Realization

Carl M — Thu, 31 May 2007 13:50:53 -0000

Do no harm. Leave the world better than the way you found it. Respect others. Do an honest day's work for a day's wages. Learn and help others learn.

Of course each of these could be fleshed out into far more than two paragraphs -- each could be fleshed out into a series of books. Heading in the other direction, each of them is subsumed by the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you (though the golden rule doesn't work so well for those with little or no concern for their own comfort and well-being).

Re: The Bimbo And The Caveman: Relationships vs. Nature

Carl M — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 12:20:01 -0000

OK, the comments make me think that I should read all the way through this post, but I clicked in quickly to respond just to say that I think it is absurd that anyone would maintain that sexuality has ANYTHING to do with rationality. Daniel, you're too rational to suggest something like this, so I will assume that later when I have time to read the full post, I'll discover that the later parts of the post pull back from your early implication.

Re: The Bimbo And The Caveman: Relationships vs. Nature

Carl M — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 08:13:45 -0000

OK, I've read the whole thing now. My new comment is that you've thrown away any chance of elected office. :)

Seriously, I do think that it is absurd to imply that the most successful relataionships are those where the men tell the women what to do. And, to buy into the myth that women LOVE being dominated in this way is tragic. Sure, there are women who fit the description that you describe, but there are far more who rightly consider themselves to be the equals of the men they are with and do not wish to be told what to do. Are men and women the same? No, of course not. Is the desire for respect gender based? No, of course not. When one person dominates another in the way you describe (by telling them what to do, what to wear, etc.) it is degrading PRECISELY because it displays a lack of respect.

The most dangerous part of your post (IMO) is:

"Why does she endure this at the risk of losing everything?
Because she loves it."

This is what abusive men think to themselves (and even what friends of abused women once thought). It simply isn't true. Abused women do not stay because they love being abused. There is a complex set of reasons that some have difficulty leaving such a relationship, but "loving it" is not in the set.

Re: The Bimbo And The Caveman: Relationships vs. Nature

Carl M — Mon, 11 Jun 2007 11:49:28 -0000

Of course I didn't think you were advocating abusive relationships. I simply think that you are stating a tautology: "For people who like this sort of thing, this is the sort of thing that they would like." Well, no kidding.

You seem to believe that people need it pointed out that they might like this sort of relationship. I was simply saying that your post SOUNDS a lot like the excuses that abusive men give to themselves (and others). Again .. I understand completely that you are not advocating anything non-consentual. It is very likely true that the early leaders of womens liberation tried to give a unified voice to women when no such unified voice exists. Women are not all alike (nor are men all alike .. nor are the members of any particular race all alike). But, those days have long passed and there is a general understanding that people are all different and have different needs. It is understood when women CHOOSE to leave their job to be full-time moms. It is even beginning to be understood when men make the choice to leave their job to be full-time dads.

The point of your post seems to be "don't let the politically correct expectations of our current society dictate your path to happiness." I would say that a better message is "don't let ANYONE dictate your path to happiness." If you are in a relationship, then you should respect the other party and not believe that your opinion is any more valuable than theirs (at least in the context of the relationship). (I know that you agree with me on this -- I'm not accusing you of believing otherwise.) Trust, openness, respect, discussion, etc. are all important parts of a strong relationship, and those are all two-way things.

Finally, I have to STRONGLY disagree with John Doe and: "The happiest relationship is one where the woman willingly gives her submission because she trusts her man to treat her right." That is one recipe for success (if the man does in fact treat her right -- and if the woman truly wishes such a relationship). It is also a recipe for dismal failure (if the man does NOT treat her right -- and it may be a subtle mental abuse that the woman does not even recognize as abuse -- she can't go out with friends? well, it's only fair .. after all, she should always be there for the man). The fact is that there is no single secret to a successful and happy relationship.

Re: Apple Just Killed The iPhone

Carl M — Wed, 13 Jun 2007 10:06:27 -0000

About your price point. The 8 GB iPod nano sells for $249. (and SELLS) This is not as compact as a nano, but it's a MUCH nicer iPod than the nano so I'd expect that AS AN iPod, this would sell for more than $249. And, oh, it's got a phone and other goodies thrown in. You guys are looking at this thing as a smartphone that doesn't have all the bells and whistles you wish it had. It's actually a VERY NICE iPod with LOTS of bells and whistles. Is it PERFECT? No. Will it grow over time? Surely. Will it sell? Have no doubts.

Re: IM: Gtalk –> AIM

Carl M — Thu, 14 Jun 2007 21:09:12 -0000

Well, I'm not a big IMer, but Arik's right. Adium seems to be a nice little program.

Re: iPhone Battery Life: Prepare For The Worst

Carl M — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 11:02:13 -0000

You're accusing Apple of lying about a product spec. If they did that they'd lose all credibility. They are not stupid and I too am stunned that you would give a rumor like that one thecredibility you're giving it.

Re: iPhone Battery Life: Prepare For The Worst

Carl M — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:21:34 -0000

That wasn't my point! If he had taken a Microsoft press release that said that they were improving the battery life of something to X hours and somehow concluded that something was fishy, I'd have celled him on that too.

I'd not have commented if he had said "hmm .. their original surface must have been awful prone to scratches for them to suddenly switch to high quality glass this close to the release date." That seems to me to be a plausible reading of the press release. Or even "hmm .. perhaps there was something to the rumors that the battery life wasn't all that great .. I'm glad to see that they've decided to address the problem BEFORE releasing the thing."

I just don't understand how one can take a press release listing improvements in a product as somehow being evidence that something is fishy. That's the part I find puzzling. I realized after I hit "Submit" that it sounded like I was being overprotective of Apple. I'd have said the same about ANY company with a good reputation. When a (reasonably trustworthy) company issues a press release listing a set of improved specs for a product, I don't see any way that this can be taken as evidence that the product will be significantly worse than the specs claim. Again, in this case -- since they are improving a product that hadn't even been released yet, one COULD take it as meaning that there were issues that needed to be addressed immediately: that is, before version 2 of the product. Actually, Daniel, as I reread your post, I think that perhaps this is what you were trying to say .. but used "it's" to mean "it WAS" when we poor readers read it as "it IS." If you meant "it WAS insanely short" then .. well .. NEVERMIND. :) (Though in that case you can take this as an object lesson in the use of ambiguous contractions.)

... speaking of blogs ... I wonder if I could get a blog attached to my personal web page at school .. and have it conform to the style of the university pages. If only I had a workshop/lab to attend on Thursday afternoon.

Re: iPhone Battery Life: Prepare For The Worst

Carl M — Tue, 19 Jun 2007 16:23:17 -0000

arrrrgh ... "called him ..."

Re: A Letter To Religious Moderates

Carl M — Wed, 27 Jun 2007 09:17:19 -0000

A couple of points of logic.

I already commented in an earlier thread that meaning is not separate from context and that it is not always a simple matter to ascertain "the" literal meaning of a passage in the Bible. So, as Craig has already indicated, even among those who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible there is disagreement as to what the correct literal interpretation is.

I'm puzzled by your option 2 ... I think that this is precisely where ALL religious moderates fall (it could almost serve as my definition of a religious moderate).

Your statement that "moderate Christians already reject God" is just absurd. Not taking the Bible as absolutely literal or (alternatively) believing that certain passages and rules were meant only for the time during which they were written is NOT the same thing as rejecting God. It may seem that way to a fundamentalist, but it shouldn't seem that way to an athiest or agnostic. Here's an example: I respect you and enjoy (and learn from) some parts of what you write. On the other hand, I do not agree with all that you write. Is that REJECTING you? It isn't from my perspective (and I hope that it isn't from yours either).

Finally, "People seem to think it’s ok to pick and choose what to follow, but the Bible clearly states that it is wrong: Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. — Deuteronomy 4:2" Surely you see the logical error you're making here. If it is NOT OK to pick-and-choose, then this passage carries meaning. If it IS OK to pick-and-choose, then this passage simply is not chosen. There's no logical contradiction in that. Religious moderates find their God and their religion in their hearts (not in the literal interpretation of every word in a book). When something in a book (the Bible or other book), in a sermon, or in life resonates with a deeply held belief (or perhaps one not so deeply held), then the belief is strengthened. The fact that the book, the sermon, or life is cluttered with OTHER stuff doesn't really matter.

I believe that the sun will appear on schedule each morning. Every time it does, it reinforces this belief. Do unto others as you would have others do unto you SEEMS like a good philosophy. Every time you see it work, your belief in that philosophy is strengthened. Is it impossible that moderates (consciously or not) have a similar approach to religion?

Re: What’ll Happen When Someone Dies In MMA?

Carl M — Fri, 29 Jun 2007 08:51:47 -0000

I remain befuddled how people can enjoy a "sport" in which they themselves asert that it is only a matter of time before someone gets "really hurt."

I knew a guy in college who loved Professional Wrestling. It wasn't so much that he was entertained by it that bothered me (different people are amused by different things), but HE BELIEVED THAT IT WAS REAL. That he thought that the violence was REAL and he STILL LOVED IT is what bothered me. I am DEEPLY disturbed by the fact that people are entertained by real violence (or what they perceive as real violence).

Re: What’ll Happen When Someone Dies In MMA?

Carl M — Sat, 30 Jun 2007 05:09:49 -0000

Rick, I never said it was a moral issue. Certainly things other than moral issues can be deeply disturbing. What two adults choose to do is their business (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else). I choose not to accept that "life is violent" means that we need to seek it out, and it disturbs me that some CELEBRATE it. To me there IS a fundamental difference between the "performers" and the fans. You're correct to conclude that I see the fans' bloodlust as more disturbing.

Tim, I would also dispute that ninety percent of the world vicariously lives out violent urges by watching violent shows or playing violent games, but I understand your point.

Re: The Type Of Gas You Use Really Does Matter

Carl M — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 15:09:07 -0000

"... decided to try a couple of tanks of Chevron 93 octane in my 335i.
Wow. There is a noticeable difference in my performance."

What is this in comparison to? ie: What was in your car before you tried this? Same octane but a brand known to have a lesser amount of detergent additive?

Re: The Aesthetics vs. Features iPhone Debate

Carl M — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 17:00:10 -0000

I now own an iPhone too. Very cool, but I've not had enough time to really play with it yet. Anyway, I agree completely with Daniel's point. There's no point in having an argument about what amounts to taste.

Adam, you left out a biggie:

When a version that will connect to a network faster than Edge comes out it will silence some of the critics. I see this as FAR more important than number 2 in your list. This thing is about as small as I'd want it already.

Based on my limited experience with this thing, I will say that for someone (like me) who is not used to using his phone for internet stuff at all, this thing is GREAT. It's not lightning quick, but I can check my email at an entirely acceptable speed (on the Edge network). Using Safari to load a large website can be slow, but I have no complaints at all. I had the opportunity to use the WiFi connection .. very nice and plenty fast. And, as silly as it sounds, it was REALLY COOL to see the little pins drop onto the map when I typed "restaurants."

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to convert the contact lists from my PALM and old cell phone to my Mac Address book for easy importing. While I'm at it, I'll convert my PALM calendar to the Apple Calendar. (This ought to keep me busy for a while.)

Re: The Aesthetics vs. Features iPhone Debate

Carl M — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 21:58:05 -0000

This was sent on my iPhone. The keyboard takes some getting used to, but I am pleased.

Re: Mandatory iPhone Shortcut [Punctuation/Capitalization With One Motion]

Carl M — Sun, 08 Jul 2007 20:01:52 -0000

I appreciate the tip. Keep them coming!

There's something that the Maps software should do, but I can't figure out how. Suppose i have three contacts that live near each other. How do I get push pins to appear for all of their locations? (I've tried typing "contacts" in the search field in the same way you might type "restaurants" or "gas." It doesn't seem to work.) More generally, it would be nice to be able to use "or" in the search field. The nice thing is that "obvious" improvements like this one can be done in software and won't require version 2.0 of the hardware.

Re: Women Resenting and Dumping Their Househusbands

Carl M — Thu, 12 Jul 2007 13:18:21 -0000

Adam is right. Without that data, this is essentially meaningless. In fact, it's not clear that even WITH the numbers for the three groups Adam listed it would be all that meaningful. There's a fourth group: couples in which NEITHER partner works. Is the divorce rate even higher for that group? Can we make the conclusion that the divorce rate is due entirely to the ONE factor of who (if anyone) is working and who (if anyone) is not? It may well be that the personality types that lend themselves to one or another situation make divorce more or less likely. I would hope that divorce is (at least MOST OF THE TIME) not a one issue thing.

For the record, I know three men who are "house husbands" ("stay-at-home dads" is perhaps more common terminology) and they are all in very stable (and long-term) marriages.

Re: Instant Messaging Kills Babies

Carl M — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:40:04 -0000

You need to redefine "rude" or use the "invisible" or "BUSY" option most of those systems provide. "BUSY" means .. I'm here, but don't expect a reply.

Re: Interesting New Spam Business Model

Carl M — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 15:23:12 -0000

Um ... NEW?

Re: Why Scott Adams is Wrong about Atheism

Carl M — Sun, 12 Aug 2007 12:30:50 -0000

I'm not convinced that Scott Adams ever gave his personal beliefs on the matter. Certainly he never claimed to.

As you know, he discussed Pascal's Wager recently. But, as I read it, it was merely a statement of the idea. I don't think (though I may be misremembering) that he ever said "I believe that this shows that it is best to believe in God .. just in case." He may have said (in the context of the discussion) that it is better to believe in God because ... but I took that to be a statement of the sort "given the premises we have been discussing, it follows that ..."

In any case, calculation of expected value breaks down (or at least becomes more complicated) when infinite quantities are involved.

Re: Why Scott Adams is Wrong about Atheism

Carl M — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 04:28:43 -0000

You're getting bent out of shape about a semantic argument (which would delight Scott Adams). You're defining 100% certainty in one way and Adams is defining it CORRECTLY. You don't get to say things like "When I say 100%, I really mean anything over 99.99%" -- not in a semantic argument (which is all this is). The whole point of the Adams post (other than the bit about antagonizing those whose buttons are easily pushed) relies on the fact that 100% MEANS 100%. It's the basis of Pascal's wager too. It uses the same sort of calculation that you routinely give (for example when you calculate risk as a product of two quantities). The key is that one of the quantities in Pascal's wager is INFINITE (which, as I said in an earlier reply, needs to be dealt with rather carefully). A tiny risk of an ETERNITY IN HELL .. what does that product come to? THAT is the point. It's an intellectual game! As long as that tiny risk is NON-ZERO (even if it is VERY VERY close to zero), that infinite factor makes the product VERY NON-ZERO.

Re: Why Scott Adams is Wrong about Atheism

Carl M — Mon, 13 Aug 2007 16:08:48 -0000

To summarize an offline discussion (my point of view):

The original Pascal's Wager consisted of a choice between two possibilities:
Possibility ONE: There is no God (or at least not one who will punish non-believers)
Possibility TWO: There is a God who punishes nonbelievers with eternal agony (and rewards believers with the lack thereof)

Choosing to believe in Possibility ONE __might__ result in eternal agony (something we want to avoid) while choosing to believe in Possibility TWO has no such possibility. In this case, one can eliminate the possibility of eternal agony by choosing to believe in Possibility TWO. In the language of "expected value", choosing to believe in Possibility TWO results in an expected amount of AGONY that is NON-infinite while choosing to believe in Possibility ONE results in an expected amount of AGONY that is infinite (if we grant only that the possibility of the truth of Possibility TWO is non-zero).

But things get funny as soon as more choices are included in the mix. If two or more possibilities exist which promise eternal agony for the non-believer, then there is NO WAY TO AVOID the dire result that the expected amount of agony is INFINITE. This doesn't mean that there's nothing to say in this case, it simply means that the game has changed from avoiding eternal agony to decreasing the probability that one is subject to it. The way to minimize the probability of suffering eternal agony is to choose to believe in the option that promises infinite agony that is most likely to be true. How one decides which is most likely to be true is another question entirely, but (at the very least) one decreases ones probability of suffering eternal agony by choosing to believe ANY possibility (that promises eternal agony to non-believers).

That is the end of it ONLY IF the only goal of the game is to avoid eternal agony. I maintain that there is more to life than that. Imagine that you could seal yourself in an underground bunker safely in a bubble .. protected from accidents, lightning strikes, bacteria, etc. Others would bring you food and take care of your every need. Your own risks are minimized to the fullest possible extent. You could perhaps increase your life expectancy by 10 years or more (a pretty substantial percentage of your life). Would you do it? At what cost do those extra years of life come? I would maintain that it is NOT irrational to opt not to take this option with ones life (even if not doing so results in a shorter life).

In the same way, it may not be irrational to NOT believe in a religion that promises eternal agony if one judges that the probability of that religion being true is sufficiently small. Remember, we can't avoid the result of having an expected amount of agony that is infinite (if two or more religions promising eternal agony have non-zero probability of being true). So, the game becomes that of minimizing the probability of suffering eternal agony. I am not sure that it is irrational to conclude that the (perhaps miniscule) decrease in this probability is worth all that would go into adhering to that particular religion.

I'm going to risk posting this without proofreading it. I hope that it is clear. If not, please feel free to ask for clarification. (And, of course, feel free to tell me that I'm an idiot.)

Re: Cheney Discussing Why Invading Iraq Would Be a Horrible Idea

Carl M — Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:40:02 -0000

Not sure of your title (unless you mean that he should VIEW this bit of history before he decides that Iran is worth invading).

Anyway, nice to know that he was once sane.

Re: Yeah, She’s Only 15

Carl M — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 06:07:10 -0000

I'd especially extend this to the sickening beauty pagents for little kids. Those parents (who I can only guess are living vicariously through their children) should be locked away.

(perhaps an overstatement ... but not by much)

Re: God — Not Man — Committed the Original Sin

Carl M — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:30:57 -0000

At the risk of offending EVERYONE, I feel the need to contribute something to this discussion. The comments are made in no particular order (well, perhaps they're in the order that makes them easier to understand as a group).

First, I don't think that ANY religion makes the claim the those who follow God live lives without suffering (EVERYONE suffers .. and EVERYONE knows this so it would be an absurd claim). The claim that is sometimes made by religions is that AFTER DEATH suffering will end (for some at least).

Second, I would argue that a parent who chooses to shield a child from every conceivable harm CAUSES HARM. We learn from our mistakes and grow stronger by overcoming problems. That sheltering parent will not be there forever and will have prevented their child from learning to stand on their own two feet. A person who is afraid to make a mistake (because they have not learned how to recover from mistakes -- or worse because they think that making a mistake is a sin) is a weaker person than one who understands that mistakes can be learning experiences. We all make mistakes. We all suffer. We (can) learn from both. A world without mistakes and suffering would be rather stagnant and uninteresting. I am glad that we do not inhabit such a world. (Some would say, "Thank God we don't live in such a world.") :)

Third, creating a world that includes suffering is not necessarily a sin - nor is making a mistake necessarily a sin. So, I guess I have to quarrel with the premise of the original post. I consider it bad parenting when parents shelter their children so much that when they enter the "real world" they are unprepared to handle the mistakes they are sure to make, the problems they are sure to encounter, and the suffering that they are sure to endure. A good parent takes the (difficult) step of letting their children make mistakes and helping them learn from those mistakes. It is not hard to argue that a creator God might take the same attitude. In any case, what would be the point in a world without suffering? Where is the learning? Where is the growth?

Re: God — Not Man — Committed the Original Sin

Carl M — Thu, 16 Aug 2007 09:55:36 -0000

"You mean God is mortal and will die someday? Sweet!"

I didn't say that. When I say "parent" I mean "parent." I'm pretty transparent like that. But, I see your point. If God WILL be there forever to shield us, then the analogy with parents breaks down. I was really responding to A's bit about good parenting in the second part of my previous reply. The third part of that reply makes the case that is it not inconceivable that a creator God would choose to allow suffering (whether such a God is eternal or not is not relevant to this point).

Re: God — Not Man — Committed the Original Sin

Carl M — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:09:17 -0000

"And how did your god react to that?"

__MY__ GOD? I made no claims to any God. Don't put words in my mouth. The intention of my post was to steer people from putting words in themouths of others and from drawing unwarranted conclusions. I was merely trying to keep the discussion from becoming a barrage of emotional statements that lacked logical flow. I have never stated my own religious beliefs here.

Re: God — Not Man — Committed the Original Sin

Carl M — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:19:59 -0000

“The gods can either take away evil from the world and will not, or, being willing to do so cannot…. If they have the will to remove evil and cannot, then they are not omnipotent. If they can but will not, then they are not benevolent. If they are neither willing nor able, they are neither omnipotent nor benevolent.”

That's only valid if we define "benevolent" in a particular way. PERHAPS evil is necessary for growth. PERHAPS you can't have the LITTLE evils in life without also having the BIG evils (much as mathematics can't have SOME negative numbers without having them ALL). PERHAPS the universe was put into motion with the framework that would lead to the greatest possible growth and deeply felt happiness and satisfaction for its inhabitants and that framework also (by necessity) contained suffering and evil. PERHAPS a choice was made NOT to have a stagnant universe in which (PERHAPS) there could be no DEEPLY felt happiness.

Once again, I guess I need to make clear that I am NOT stating my beliefs. I'm merely stating a LOGICALLY POSSIBLE situation (that some seem to not even recognize as a possibility).

Maybe the beauty we see in a sunrise is only perceived as beauty in contrast to the chaos of the world. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder .. and depends on what that beholder brings to the table in terms of past experience.

Re: God — Not Man — Committed the Original Sin

Carl M — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 11:18:00 -0000

"Imagine a collective intelligence like ants where it’s Ok for a thousand ants to be crushed for the “greater good” and they don’t call it evil." I don't dispute that the concept of "evil" is a human creation. "What WE describe as evil ... " THAT's what I mean by evil (what else could I mean?). The fact that humans defined evil doesn't mean that things do not fit the definition. I was arguing that it is POSSIBLE that for us to experience HAPPINESS (also a human creation) might REQUIRE that there is suffering (evil if you prefer) in the world.

"How can you conclude that the Universe was designed ..." I'm sure this is not directed at me, but just in case .. I'm certain that I didn't state a conclusion that the Universe was designed (nor that humans occupy any particularly special part of it).

Re: God — Not Man — Committed the Original Sin

Carl M — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 04:06:21 -0000

"And you don’t create a life form from nothingness in order to “teach it something” while requiring it to suffer horribly in the mean time. That’s not moral behavior."

You're still missing the point. Let's suppose that you wanted to create life and that you wanted that life to REALLY EXPERIENCE HAPPINESS (and not just have a mental state that simulates happiness -- we can debate in a separate thread if there is really a distinction to be made here .. I just need you to accept that there COULD be a distinction). MAYBE (just maybe) it is necessary that this new life ALSO experiences suffering as part of the deal. If so (and if happiness is the goal), then it would be immoral NOT to create a world with suffering.

I would ALSO argue that a primary impetus to growth (as we humans define it) is suffering in one form or another, but this is a separate argument that suffering may be necessary for us to have as rich an experience as we have.

Finally, I still maintain that a world without ANY suffering (how much is the right amount is another argument .. and may involve some slippery slopes) would be FAR inferior to the one we inhabit. (And, yes, I realize that this is easy to say from the vantage point of one who is NOT experiencing any significant suffering at the moment.)

--

One last point .. "God doesn’t learn ANYTHING, ever. He’s omniscient." Not everyone's God is omnicient. Even many Christians believe in a Creator God who set things in motion but does not necessarily know where things are headed. Perhaps there is even evidence in the Bible (if one was to take it literally) that God is not omnicient. One could argue that if he knew that people would become evil, he'd not have lost his temper and wiped (most of) them out with the flood. As I recall, He then apologized to Noah and created the rainbow as a symbol that He's got his temper under control now and won't lose it again.

I'm not suggesting that you're wrong that we made the whole thing up (for example, we understand the physics of rainbows now), but I am suggesting that you're oversimplifying and not listening to other possibilities. There's the Sci Fi vision of our universe being a laboratory creation in some other universe. The creator scientist set things in motion and did so to see what would happen (not knowing this in advance). Was this scientist immoral to create our universe? Maybe some in his universe would argue that he was. I'm personally happy to have had the opportunity to live, love, create, etc. So, given the two options of THIS UNIVERSE or NOTHING, I'd choose THIS UNIVERSE.

If it is possible to logically prove or disprove the existence of God (or even whether or not God could be omnicient or "good" or whatever), I've not seen a convincing proof. My goal in the responses I've posted here is to keep people from making claims purported to be based on logic that do not follow logically from their arguments. In a sense (and quite ironically I suppose) I am playing devil's advocate in pointing out the logical flaws in the arguments that God CAN'T exist (or CAN'T have some property).

Re: God — Not Man — Committed the Original Sin

Carl M — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 11:37:56 -0000

"I only chose this because its such a commonly held belief." Fair enough .. as long as you're clear about who you're attacking. (And I still don't accept your premise that it is immoral to create a universe with suffering.)

(For the record, the statistics I find most frightening are the ones about teaching creationism in place of evolution in SCIENCE classes.) Many bealieve that we are ALL children of God. To believe that Jesus was also a child of God does not necessarily place him in a special class. And, though I don't think that this is really the point about Jesus' virgin birth, virgin births are certainly possible these days with technology ... and really have always been possible with an "almost" loss of virginity. I wouldn't be too surprised if there has been a virgin birth somewhere in human history.

Re: God — Not Man — Committed the Original Sin

Carl M — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 06:40:12 -0000

:) Well, now I'm just tempted to talk about the various species on Earth that although they NORMALLY reproduce sexually (ie: with a male and female) can SOMETIMES reproduce WITHOUT a male .. they have the potential for virgin births. Maybe God allows for this sort of thing in special circumstances. :)

OK OK OK ... You're probably right that I've gone too far in the direction of giving people too many outs, I'll try to keep my points more to the point and not go too far. On the other hand, you should acknowledge that there are MANY religious (and otherwise spiritual) people who do not subscribe to the full package.

Re: The Ultimate Response to “Do You Accept Jesus as Your Personal Savior?”

Carl M — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 02:27:20 -0000

Perhaps I'm simply missing something obvious, but I honestly don't understand this one.

Taking the relevant parts of the New Testament at face value, Jesus' death wasn't human sacrifice .. it was self sacrifice. Suppose someone made a choice that THEY would die if it would save (in the non-religious sense of the word) 50 others. In an appropriate context (you can make up your own scenerio) this person would be called a hero (he jumped onto a grenade -- he spent the last hour of his life helping people evacuate a building that is about to collapse -- OK, I said that you could make up your own scenerio). Would the saved people give that answer? ("I wouldn’t wish to accept personal gain as a result of an act of human sacrifice.") I don't think that they would.

On the other hand, if one views the death penalty as human sacrifice, then I suppose you'd view Jesus' death (as presented in the New Testament) as human sacrifice. In this case, IF (and ONLY IF) you believe that any benefits to society brought about by the death penalty are outweighed by the negatives of the killing itself, THEN you might say something like "I wouldn’t wish to accept personal gain as a result of an act of human sacrifice." Was this the point?

This time I'm not trying to be picky. I am just trying to understand the point of the post.

Re: The Ultimate Response to “Do You Accept Jesus as Your Personal Savior?”

Carl M — Tue, 21 Aug 2007 05:58:42 -0000

Whatever your views on religion, Madeleine Albright has some interesting things to say about the perils of ignoring religion in foreign affairs in a recent CNN interview:

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/08/17/albright.qa/in...

Re: The Future is Divided

Carl M — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 03:43:59 -0000

... where to begin? ...

I'll start with this: Cody, there is a difference between continual growth and infinite growth. I agree that there is too much focus by investors on short-term growth rather than long-term growth (and stability), but nobody has any illusion of infinite growth. Further, SOME lobbyists may be a detriment to progress (this is almost certainly true in fact), but any interest group that has a spokesperson in Washington talking to legislators has a LOBBYIST. Can they ALL be bad? Interest groups having spokespersons is not in and of itself a bad thing.

OK .. now .. on to the original post itself. My first reaction was to say that you watch too many movies or television dramas. I think that your fears are a bit exaggerated. Most of the things you list are not new.

• The division between Rich and Poor getting larger (not new .. and a very real problem)
• Crime getting worse (not a new fear .. though the trend in recent years has been the opposite)
• Large areas of our country not safe to be in (I think you're overstating things here ... there are certainly neighborhoods where I wouldn't recommend walking at night .. and some that are not acceptably safe in daylight .. but this is not new and I don't think that it's going to become something like "Escape from NY" or something.
• Dramatic Social Separation (not new .. and a very real problem)
• We'll "start" to see new drugs ... (START?!?? this isn't new either .. new drugs come about all the time .. but this is a very real problem)
• Education ... (I'm not sure what level you're talking about .. but I will (as usual) argue that a SOLID education is the answer -- we need to end social promotion -- we need to end the acceptance of failure -- we need to end the EXPECTATION of failure. I believe that nearly EVERYONE can master (that's right .. MASTER) everything in a high school education (the exceptions are that small percentage of people who have a mental disability). The acceptance (and expectation!) of failure is an incredibly serious problem .. and it is only made worse by promoting students to the next grade when they are not ready for it.)
• I don't see a civil war coming. The secret is to quit pretending that we're giving real educations to everyone and start to actually GIVE real educations to everyone. Education is power and (cliche though it may be) the ticket to success. People revolt when they feel that they are unfairly being denied opportunity. (Who can blame them?) The solution is to not unfairly deny ANYONE opportunity.
• Kids having kids .. (a very serious problem that MIGHT be solved if there were REAL opportunities for these kids -- "I can't ever be what I dream of when I grow up, but I CAN be a mommy."

Re: The Future is Divided

Carl M — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:43:30 -0000

It may be that the growth in the ills of society that you listed is exponential growth and that what we have seen so far is the gradual upslope at the left edge of the exponential graph. It may be that we're about to enter the part of the graph in which the slope becomes suddenly and enormously positive (HUGE upswing). Perhaps. I remain unconvinced because I think that society recognizes the problems (I don't think that there are many who believe that the US is invulnerable to ruin -- or rather .. there aren't many who are in a position to fix things who believe that there is nothing to fix). I believe that when enough people recognize that a problem exists and set to work to fix it, the problem can USUALLY be solved.

For example, consider the energy shortage. We've known since (at least) the 70's that an energy crisis loomed ahead -- so we've had scientists working hard on fusion and other alternative energy sources so that TODAY we don't rely on ... oh wait .. let me find another example. OK, consider the political turmoil in the middle east. There have been problems there for decades (um ... perhaps longer), so we've had diplomats and others working hard on the issue which is why TODAY we see .. um ... hmmmm.

Here's a better example. Consider the fact that it was believed that the Earth could not sustain 6 billion people (the argument being that there is not enough room to farm enough food to feed that many people). Advances in agriculture made it possible to feed that many people. Smallpox and other diseases have been overcome with the hard work of many. Average living conditions in the world today are INCREDIBLY good in comparison to 50 years ago. Does that mean that there are no problems left? Of course not. But, I don't see an end to the desire and ability to overcome the problems that confront us. I EVEN think that society is starting to wake up to the fact that education is KEY (as evidenced by things like the No Child Left Behind Act -- the right motivation .. though I'm not convinced that it has yet sunk in just how insidious (operating or proceeding in an inconspicuous or seemingly harmless way but actually with grave effect) social promotion is). Anyway, I don't think we're (yet) in the dire situation you outline.

Re: The Future is Divided

Carl M — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 06:55:02 -0000

"Everyone is born into this nation with the chance, barring birth defects and such, to achieve success. This is a social issue and if the government gets involved it will escalate the demise, not help."

I have to disagree here. Education is NOT equal for all in this country and education is the key to success. Birth defects aside, when some schools have HIGH expectations for their students and others have LOW expectations (or even reward things like attendance and the appearance of work over the actual acquisition of knowledge and skills) then the students do NOT have the same chance for success. This is one of the times that the government NEEDS to step in. It simply is not realistic to say "the parents should just demand better education." The fact is that the parents MIGHT NOT KNOW WHAT TO DEMAND. They might live in a county or region that has FOREVER had low expectations and might not understand what sort of fundamental change is required. The government may not be the solution to every problem (surely it isn't), but that doesn't mean that it isn't a necessary part to SOME solutions.

Re: The Future is Divided

Carl M — Fri, 24 Aug 2007 16:39:29 -0000

Rick, you make a lot of valid points .. but I don't think that you can blame government when parents expect government to replace parenting (though you could blame local governments to some extent for letting it happen). I agree with you that parental guidance plays an enormous role in the development (including the educational development) of children. And, I understand that you came from a broken home. But, there are far too many parents who do not understand the value of education or do not know what is required to help their kids get a proper education. You're correct .. this is a social problem. You stated: "So, if the bottom line is the parents are faulty and the kids do not have drive, how do you ever teach a child that what they are taught at home is wrong and that they should not end up like their parents." My reply is that we MUST teach these children EXACTLY THIS. We needn't be rude about it .. we needn't even mention their parents. What we can do is show them that we believe in their potential to do great things (and tell them what those great things could be - not in comparison to their parents .. just show them that WE BELIEVE in their potential). This needs to begin EARLY -- before the kids even realize that they could do better than their parents (this is not a thought that typically occurs to a 5 or 6 year-old kid). We then need to help them do what they need to do to achieve that potential. When I say "we" here .. I mean society .. not JUST teachers .. but certainly including teachers. The problem is that there are many in society who don't believe that kids can succeed. Others don't WANT them to succeed. Others aren't willing to do EVERYTHING we can to help all kids succeed. You talk about PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY and I'm behind you on that .. but you can't blame a 5 year old for not taking the initiative to learn to read when their parents don't read to them and their teacher doesn't have time for them because the classes are too big -- and the school system insists that the teacher send all the kids on to the next grade anyway. When children are passed on to second or third grade still unable to read they have ALREADY been set up for failure in all their classes. They've been thrown down a pit that it is VERY difficult to come out of. Are there some who succeed anyway? OF COURSE. Are there others who do not succeed? YES!!! Is it their fault? Perhaps for some of them .. but COME ON ... they're 6 or 7. Give me a break. (And, yes, I do believe that schools that insist on promoting students to the next grade before they are ready RUIN LIVES .. and do so at an early age. It is, in my opinion, the GREATEST evil in this country today.)

You're exactly right that fixing the educational system (expensive though it would be) would save money (a LOT of money) in the long run (lesser costs in crime, police and court costs, jail and prison costs, etc. -- and MORE money coming in from income taxes, sales taxes, etc.). A "productive" member of society is worth a LOT more to society than a "non-productive" member. Even if we count ONLY monetary cost we come out ahead, and there are many other ways that society would benefit.

So, should government replace parenting? Of course not. Does that mean that government has no role to play in fixing these problems? Of course not. There are many parents who are simply not equiped to help their children succeed. Sad but true. Should we say "Screw 'em -- they could do better if they really wanted to!" EVEN IF THIS IS TRUE, WE CAN'T AFFORD TO SAY THIS. It isn't the parents' lives I'm concerned about .. it's their kids. Blame the parents all you want .. but that isn't helping the kids!

For the record, I don't excuse ANYONE for falling into lives of crime. I agree with you that whatever the state of the educational system and whatever the family situation .. none of that excuses criminal activity or poor life choices. I simply think that we NEED to start to REALLY fix things for the next generation. And, I think that government has a role to play in this.

Re: Redefining the Goal of Teaching

Carl M — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 13:43:51 -0000

Of course. I think that good teachers do this already.

I would say though (to continue with my theme) that there is a certain core of material that should be taught to everyone (and should be LEARNED by everyone). The ability to read is one such thing (and I think that it is obvious to everyone that the inability to read hurts the ability to learn most other things). The ability to read is a tool that EVERYONE needs. The same is true (though it may be less obvious why) of the ability to write (and speak and otherwise communicate effectively), the ability to do certain mathematics, the ability to understand scientific principles, the ability to reason, the ability to use logic (and to recognize logical errors), the ability to understand the lessons of history, etc. THIS core .. this set of tools .. lets people shine when they find that resonant subject area.

Re: Redefining the Goal of Teaching

Carl M — Sat, 25 Aug 2007 15:57:16 -0000

"By the time college comes the lights are often already dimmed."

Yep. Precisely why it is so important to do EVERYTHING we can to ensure quality early education!

Re: Redefining the Goal of Teaching

Carl M — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 06:01:07 -0000

"It’s just what I think of when I ask myself what incentives would create a better education in my city."

I often wonder the same thing. But, I don't think that private schools are the solution (not that they aren't sometimes quite good). I fear that when parents send their children to a private school (whether THAT school is good or bad), they quit being concerned about the public school. We ALL need to be concerned about the public schools.

My idea? Well, I believe that if schools quit promoting students who are not really ready for the next grade, there would be pressure from parents. That pressure might (at first) be "HEY, why isn't my kid being sent on to the next grade? I'm gonna sue!" (Unfortunately, this IS a real attitude.) But, IF the schools hang tough and don't bend under the pressure to throw away REAL standards, then the pressure will come to do what is necessary to help the kids REACH those standards. Among other things, it's going to take the courage to tell parents something like the following. "Your child is not being promoted to the next grade because they are not ready for that grade. If we promote your child before he or she is ready to move forward, we are setting your child up for failure and doing you, your child, and the community a great disservice. We will continue to do everything we can to help your child succeed, but we need your help."

Re: Future Trophy Wife: “Help the Iraq”

Carl M — Sun, 26 Aug 2007 10:19:11 -0000

Forget the "the" before Iraq. I think that if we understood her reference to South Africa, we might understand the true depth of her response. (Unfortunately, I do not understand that reference, so I am in the dark.)

Re: Redefining the Goal of Teaching

Carl M — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 08:21:07 -0000

"I’m interested in thoughts on this speech:... (John Gatto speech)"

Well, it raises a lot of important issues, but I think that it is a little off the mark in a few things. He blames school for taking time away from self-discovery. As he asserts, school should be a place where children are given the opportunity to discover who they are. It is also true (as he asserts) that we learn best what we discover ourselves (this is why labs are so important in science classes). BUT, he seems to not see a place for a CORE of knowledge and understanding. On this point I have to disagree. For example, in 1800, it may not have been so important that the general public understood the basics of science. We live in a new world. If the general public is ignorant of BASIC science, they have no basis for deciding which political candidate will make the most appropriate decisions (in those cases that such decisions rely on science). If the general public is ignorant of science, then when a candidate who (following the science) understands that spending tax money might be necessary to combat a problem (which would require even MORE tax money later if we do nothing), this candidate might have difficulty helping the public understand why the right action is to spend the money now. Science is just one example ... my point is that a CORE of basic knowledge and understanding IS important .. and that what this core should include is dictated by the CURRENT world (not the world of yesteryear -- however blissful things may have been then).

I'm also a little discouraged that (though he makes an assertion about the number of hours a child typically watches television) he seems to blame SCHOOL from taking valuable time from the students -- essentially accepting that there's nothing we can do about the time that TV is taking from them.

---

As for Paul Graham’s essay “Why Nerds are Unpopular” .. interesting stuff (though I mostly skimmed it). It includes some stuff that might be worthwhile reading for the teenage nerds of the world. I didn't see the assertion about GDP (though as I said .. I only skimmed it), but (though the assertion makes a certain amount of sense) it seems a rather overly cynical view of things. EVEN if that was the reason for public schools (clearly it isn't why they were created .. since women didn't leave the home in large numbers until relatively recently) .. but EVEN if that was the reason for public schools, it doesn't follow that the schools can't do some GOOD while they've got the children for the day.

---

Perhaps in full disclosure I should state for the record that (1) I am a teacher (university
mathematics) and (2) I had the extraordinary good fortune of attending some INCREDIBLY good public schools in the Chicago area when I grew up. So, I KNOW that good public schools are possible. I also know that MOST public schools are lacking (some SEVERELY lacking) .. I am not under the illusion that we're anywhere near where we need to be. It's just that I've SEEN it work .. and I know that it CAN work .. so I refuse to accept that it can't work or that there's something inherently wrong with the basic idea of public education.

Re: How Would You Prove Evolution?

Carl M — Tue, 28 Aug 2007 08:06:34 -0000

Wow. Great discussion .. thanks especially to those who posted links to some well-thought-out essays. James ... I especially liked the one you posted! ( http://science.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156... )

Carl

Re: Philosophy Should Be a Core Part of Education at All Levels

Carl M — Wed, 29 Aug 2007 12:52:34 -0000

We the people
in order to form a more perfect union
establish justice
ensure domestic tranquility
provide for the common defense
promote the general welfare
and
secure the blessings of liberty
for ourselves and our posterity
do ordain and establish
this constitution
for
the United States of America.

I didn't learn this for a test. I learned it from the BRILLIANT Schoolhouse Rock song. Many my age KNOW the preamble and learned it in this way. If there are errors - it is because I learned it more than 30 years ago. If there are NO errors, it's because I REALLY learned it.
(Side note: When my AP history teacher in high school told us we'd need to learn the preamble, we ALL sang it to him on the spot. He was almost in tears.) There are MANY ways to learn. But, CLEARLY, learning for an exam is NOT the right way! (What's the point?)

Re: This is How to Fold a Shirt

Carl M — Mon, 03 Sep 2007 15:46:34 -0000

I remember seeing that on the net a few years back. I even practiced it (and it's not difficult to master), BUT though it looks perfect from the front, I recall some issues with it -- I don't think it is as stable as the "standard" way to fold a t-shirt -- that is, if you are dealing with lots of shirts, putting them in a stack, moving the stack to a drawer, removing a shirt later from the stack (not necessarily the top one) .. the stack does not stay as neat as with the standard fold.

Still .. it's a pretty cool thing to show someone .. "... and this is how to fold a shirt." (OK, I admit it HARDLY ever comes up in real conversation.)

:)

Re: Christopher Hitchens Speaks at Google

Carl M — Tue, 04 Sep 2007 12:06:19 -0000

A portion of the first amendment of the Constitution states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof".

While I agree with much of what Hitchens says (and with what YOU say, Daniel); while I agree that it is an insult to humanity to assert that morality is impossible without God; while I agree that religious views have no place in science classes; and while I agree that MUCH of evil has its roots in the minds of religious zealots, I would not go so far as to conclude that religion is (in an of itself) a problem that needs to be fixed. Hitchens asserted (in his reference to MLK Jr.) that the "good" of religious people (those that are indisputably good) does not necessarily stem from their religiosity. While true, it does not follow that the good of religious people does not SOMETIMES stem from their religiosity. It seems quite clear to me that (at the very least) SOME good comes from religiosity.

In any case, if we believe in the values contained in the Constitution and its ammendments, then it seems to me that what We (the people) require of Congress ought also be expected of Us.

Re: Paying People To Be Good Parents

Carl M — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 02:32:15 -0000

Maybe I'm a foolish optimist, but I have a different take than TIMM (though with the same premise). Let's start with:

"Most children will grow into the model adults of they were familiar with in childhood. "

From there I reach a different conclusion. Here's the thing .. if there were no doctors in the world, parents wouldn't take their kids to doctors. Surely we don't believe that in the age before doctors, all parents were shirking their duties to take their kids to the doctor. The fact is that many of the services that SHOULD be used by ALL parents simply aren't available everywhere. If they weren't taken to a doctor regularly as a child, it may not even occur to a new parent that this is part of what they should do as a parent. It is obvious to take a badly ill child to a doctor, but preventive care is NOT an obvious requirement (it wasn't even obvious to insurance companies until the last 20 years or so that it would save them money in the long run to pay for some preventive care). Let's suppose that someone in the medical community was frustrated beyond belief that the message wasn't getting out there .. and that the needed facilities didn't even exist in poorer neighborhoods. How would they go about fixing this and CHANGING the expectations? This seems to be a pretty good way. If someone in the medical community had said "we need more preventive care in the inner city," the response might have been "there's no line of people looking for it .. why should we waste the resources?" If the parents in a community ask "Why the hell is this medical care available to others and not us?" then perhaps the response will be different.

Will there be abuses? Probably. Is it a long-term solution? No. But let's consider what this program could do to the culture .. to the expectations in a poor neighborhood. As TIMM said, "Most children will grow into the model adults of they were familiar with in childhood." If that model includes giving their children more complete medical care, then I would suggest that this is a GOOD thing. (The monetary incentives should be a short term thing used to raise awareness of what SHOULD be part of a complete package of medical care .. not a long-term bribe.)

Daniel, you highlighted (with bold type) the right phrases in your quoted material. I find it curious that you then ignored those phrases in your conclusion. Is it sad that this sort of thing is necessary? Sure. But who is to blame? Babies don't come with manuals. People learn how to raise children from those in their family and community. The fact that there are entire communities that have not gotten the message about what constitutes a complete package of medical care is the sad thing. Cultural inertia is a powerful thing. Overcoming inertia requires the application of a force. Though there may be many ways to accomplish the desired result, perhaps this will accomplish it most quickly (and perhaps even most inexpensively). As the insurance companies learned when they (finally) started to routinely pay for an array of preventive care, sometimes spending a LITTLE money now will save a LOT of money later.

Re: Paying People To Be Good Parents

Carl M — Sun, 09 Sep 2007 11:10:18 -0000

@ Dustin ...

If only the world was so simple. Taking children from their parents introduces incredible trauma .. separating siblings introduces incredible anguish. Additionally, welfare HAS changed some in the past 15 years. It's no longer a permanent state of being for the poor. The government has slowly come to understand the cycle of dependency that welfare can create when implemented incorrectly. Clearly the payments we're discussing here ARE a form of welfare. The question is whether they have a net benefit (and whether there is a more economical way of achieving the same benefit).

-----

One measure of a society is obtained by seeing how it treats its least fortunate members. I do not (and cannot) defend the failed welfare system of old. But, if WE believe that society benefits by having a greater number of children receive a more complete set of medical care, then WE must find a way to make that happen.

If insurance companies (which should certainly have known better) didn't understand the benefit (not only to society but to their OWN BOTTOM LINE) of paying for preventive medical exams and procedures, then how can we expect everyone in society to understand the benefit? By the way, this doesn't apply ONLY to the poor. Requirements in school systems HELP to ensure that children are getting at least some SMALL amount of medical treatment by the time they enter school, but this doesn't help encourage families with very young children to seek the medical treatment they should. Nor does it encourage adults to get the preventive treatment THEY should get. What percentage of adults (who can afford it) visit doctors at the appropriate frequency for eye exams, physicals, BP tests, cholesterol tests, etc.? Imagine what it must be for those who CAN'T as easily afford it.

Re: Paying People To Be Good Parents

Carl M — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 12:16:29 -0000

I don't think you actually disagreed with my first paragraph at all. I didn't say that we should NEVER remove a child from a home. I said that it introduces incredible trauma. You seem to agree with me on that point. There are certainly cases where this trauma is worth it in the end. I certainly agree with you on that point.

Re: I Almost Made it to 150

Carl M — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 12:53:13 -0000

Please go to a racetrack and do your speeding there. It's safer for you and others on the road.

Re: The Math and Philosophy Behind Tool’s Lateralus

Carl M — Tue, 25 Sep 2007 07:45:05 -0000

1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21, 34, 55, 89, 144, 233, 377, 610, 987, ...

OK, this guy is really reaching! 987 (nine hundred eighty-seven) is a number in the sequence. 9-8-7 is not .. nor is it a time signature.

Perhaps he gives a clue with the words: Over thinking, over analyzing

And, I'm curious how 6,7,5,8,4,9,13,1,12,2,11,3,10 is a rearrangement of the 13 tracks in a Fibonacci Sequence.

The human mind is great at seeing patterns (whether or not they are real). Perhaps the syllablic patterns were intentional. The rest is reaching (IMHO).

Re: Stupid in America

Carl M — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 08:15:36 -0000

Standards and expectations.

I haven't watched the full clip yet (I can only stomach so much 20/20 at one sitting - even when the topic is so important), but the problem isn't ONLY money (though money applied correctly CAN in fact solve just about any problem it's important to know that a near infinite supply of money NOT applied correctly might accomplish NOTHING).

All the schools need to do is not let students move forward who are not ready to move forward. THAT'S IT! It really is that simple.

Many kids put in the minimum effort required to move on. Expect and require more of them and they'll meet those new expectations.

SOME teachers are bad .. but you'll notice that the US does fine in the international comparisons in early grades. It's in LATER grades that the differences start to show up. Imagine the frustrations of a teacher who is faced with a classroom in which a third of the students aren't really ready to be there. Now, imagine how blissful it would be if EVERY STUDENT was really PREPARED to be in the grade they are in. Imagine how much easier it would be for the teachers to succeed with the students they have. When a student in a high school science class can't read well enough to process the information being presented in the book, lab manual, and lectures .. and when that same student is unable to handle calculations involving fractions .. is it really the fault of the science teacher that this student does not succeed in the science class?

When kids are held back there will likely be anger from kids and their parents (who believe their kids when they say things like "but, mom, I worked my butt off in that class and I just don't get it" and who don't understand that the problem is that even if the kid works his or her butt off trying to learn science .. the problem is with READING and basic MATH skills).

The solution is simple. And it will cost money .. not because we need new high tech methods, but because not everyone will get through grades 1-12 in 12 years. Some will take longer than that .. they will be held back one or more times .. so there will be more students in school (that's where the added cost comes from).

I believe that MOST of the problem will be solved quickly (within 5 years of getting serious about not promoting students who are not ready) because I believe that MOST of the problem is with the laziness of kids who simply do the minimum that is expected. We have let these kids dictate what "average" and "adequate" mean. By definition, they have control over what is average. They do NOT have control over what is adequate. We must set standards and require our students to reach those standards. Then we must MAINTAIN those standards.

Re: Stupid in America

Carl M — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:16:17 -0000

" 1. No more social promotion to the next grades."

I agree.

"2. Moving to a more capitalistic approach to schools like in Europe, where good schools get more money and resources and sub-standard schools die off."

Define "good schools."

Explain how this idea would work in a rural region of the country (most of the country by area) that does not have multiple school options .. or that might have ONLY substandard schools.

I guarantee that in Europe they do NOT have the same expectations of their students that we have here. We need to expect more of our students and hold them to these expectations (or don't send them forward).

"I think if we combine this with a new look at discipline and control within the classroom we’ll be able to make some major change."

Discipline is important, but teachers are frustrated at the school administrations telling them not to bother them with discipline problems (teachers are told that maintaining discipline is part of their jobs, but they are not given the authority to do what they need to do to maintain the discipline -- like send the students from the class or fail them). Students are in over their heads (and know it) because they aren't prepared for their current grade. So, they act out.

Let's just try:

" 1. No more social promotion to the next grades."

Re: My First Cool Idea

Carl M — Fri, 05 Oct 2007 21:36:36 -0000

Well, a couple of things occur to me.

(1) The site that serves up the ratings better be pretty darn secure.

(2) It better not be possible for another site to pretend that it is the ratings-serving site.

(3) If this worked for a while people might get complacent about net security so that when it was finally broken it might be a REAL mess.

... just thoughts .. (I don't think that (3) is as serious as (1) and (2).)

Re: The Best Argument I’ve Ever Heard For Why Someone Believes in God

Carl M — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 11:09:57 -0000

Not that friendly and interesting discussions shouldn't continue, but your question about how this discussion should continue seems to imply that you're not happy with leaving it as is. He understands your position. You understand his. He's happy with his world-view. You're happy with yours. As far as I can tell, he's not harming anyone with his world-view and you're not harming anyone with yours.

Seems like a good place to leave things.

Re: Dexter: Thinly Veiled Societal Sickness

Carl M — Sun, 14 Oct 2007 09:48:54 -0000

Daniel, this is exactly my point about ultimate fighting.

Re: Liberals vs. Conservatives: The Best Oversimplification You’ll Ever Read

Carl M — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 16:05:30 -0000

I wasn't going to comment because the original statement was less an oversimplification than just a silly statement, but I'm going to have to agree more with anon than with the original post.

Re: Liberals vs. Conservatives: The Best Oversimplification You’ll Ever Read

Carl M — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:16:03 -0000

So there's no confusion:

"Liberals ... don’t know how to get us there. They ... lack the ability to make difficult decisions that benefit the whole."

I disagree. (Though I don't disagree that some conservatives believe these things -- not the "..." part ... just the stuff I included in my quote.)

I don't disagree with the other half so much. Conservatives have (in recent years) been better at getting an extremist base motivated to vote and then using the resulting power to effect some change.

I find all of this sad because the bulk of Americans are more or less in the middle of the spectrum, but our two party system makes it difficult for a centrist ideology to have political success.

Re: Liberals vs. Conservatives: The Best Oversimplification You’ll Ever Read

Carl M — Mon, 15 Oct 2007 17:18:44 -0000

And, to be clear .. I didn't assume that the statement was Daniel's. Note that I commented on the content of the statement .. not on Daniel. Neither did I say that I agreed with everything that anon said.

Re: The Correct Way to Pronounce “OS X” [Video]

Carl M — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 11:02:15 -0000

Surely there are bigger issues than this one, but let's be clear. The OS is called OS X not entirely because it is the one after 9, but because it is the one that is based on UniX.

Hmmm ...

Uni = 1, X = 10. So, UniX is ...One Ten ... now is that 110? Or is it 1 times 10? Do we have videotape of someone authoritative explaining this?

Re: The Correct Way to Pronounce “OS X” [Video]

Carl M — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 14:05:15 -0000

"The UNIX part is secondary; the main definition is the version number. That’s why the OS itself pronounces it as “ten”."

Yeah, yeah, yeah .. we know. But, Apple has joined those who have brought silly redundancies into the world. (Raise your hand if you've heard of the SAT test or an ATM machine.) OS X Version 10.4.10 (which is on my machine at the moment) is NOT actually
the 10th version of OS X. It's the 10th upgrade to the 5th version of OS X. (10.0 was the
first version.) So there is a redundancy in the name OS X Version 10.x.y.

Rather than believe that Apple is capable of such silliness, people assume that the X must not be a redundant "ten" and so pronounce it "X." So, rather than just telling people that they're wrong, you should say something like "Apple was being redundant. Silly, I know, but true nonetheless. Internally they pronounce it "Oh Ess Ten," so if you want to sound like a real Mac lover, you should pronounce it that way too. Think of it like knowing a secret handshake." That way, people will thank you for bringing them into the secret world of "Oh Ess Ten"ers rather than wondering why this bothers you so. :)

Re: The Correct Way to Pronounce “OS X” [Video]

Carl M — Fri, 26 Oct 2007 20:58:52 -0000

For the record, Leopard also says "Oh Ess Ten."

Re: An Image of the Holmes Comet

Carl M — Tue, 06 Nov 2007 07:28:03 -0000

Seems a bit .. um .. well .. did you look at the picture after you posted it? I'm thinking it is more impressive on your phone. :)

Re: Leg Check of Doom

Carl M — Wed, 21 Nov 2007 18:43:35 -0000

Disgusting.

Re: Randall Munroe’s (XKCD’s) Other Websites

Carl M — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:46:41 -0000

Wow. I just went to "The Fairest" and saw some of the most incredibly beautiful photographs I have ever seen.

Re: Is It Wrong to Have Children?

Carl M — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 14:53:17 -0000

At the risk of my words being twisted, let me throw out a hypothetical.

Let's suppose that all of the best and the brightest bought into your premise that they should adopt rather than have children of their own.

Discuss.

Re: Is It Wrong to Have Children?

Carl M — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 15:36:37 -0000

I merely threw out a hypothetical.

But, IF one believes that the world would benefit from the DNA of the best and brightest remaining in the gene pool, then one could argue that their willingness to do so is not necessarily a selfish thing.

In a separate direction ... I think it could be argued that many of those who choose NOT to have children do so for selfish reasons. (I apologize if this was already mentioned above.) The logic might go like this: Having a child and raising that child properly requires an enormous sacrifice. I'm not willing to make that sacrifice. (Isn't that selfish?)

Re: Is It Wrong to Have Children?

Carl M — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 21:44:35 -0000

"All I’m saying is that the choice is, fundamentally, selfish. It’s an internal desire left over from long ago designed to keep us from dying off vs. predators. Like many of our other desires we need to contemplate when it’s important to control it as a remnant of a time long past."

What you're describing in this quote, Daniel, is an instinctual drive, not selfishness. I think that it's a bit of a stretch to call it selfishness to not make the decision to overcome instinct.

I don't think that most new parents rush headlong into parenthood because they just can't wait. I've no idea what the percentage of such parents is, but I seriously doubt it is significant. As for the overpopulation argument (and I'm a BIG believer that the world would be better off with fewer and not more people), I've always thought that 2 makes sense and more is overkill. I like Eamon's idea that if you want more after 2, adopt. I do think that there is something to be said for keeping the best and the brightest in the gene pool, but I think it is just wrong to suggest that anyone should not be allowed to reproduce as Ken seemed to suggest someone believed with: ''So who should be allowed to reproduce? Should it be people who can ensure that there children will not experience pain or cause pain?"

So, in a nutshell ... Yes, Daniel, I think that this is an important discussion. I would suggest that if you really want it to be a discussion, you might leave out loaded terminology such as "selfishness." Your logic seems to be "There are too many people in the world. Intelligent people must surely recognize this. Intelligent people seem to be having babies. These intelligent people must be doing so for entirely selfish reasons." Why not just stick to the first sentence: "There are too many people in the world." ANd, add a question: "What is the solution?" I bet that this would generate an interesting discussion (and it would hit on more than just the birthrate in different countries).

Re: Is It Wrong to Have Children?

Carl M — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:55:34 -0000

OK, I did the math for the Texas claim. It's right, but entirely irrelevant. For the record, 1000 square feet is a square approximately 11 yards on a side. My driveway is over 2000 square feet. Not that it's relevant anyway, but 1000 square feet is not a lot of space.

Furthermore, the fact that PARTS of the world are depopulating isn't relevant either. The world population is growing (at a rapid rate).

Here are the UN population numbers (and estimates).

1950 2 535 093
1955 2 770 753
1960 3 031 931
1965 3 342 771
1970 3 698 676
1975 4 076 080
1980 4 451 470
1985 4 855 264
1990 5 294 879
1995 5 719 045
2000 6 124 123
2005 6 514 751
2010 6 906 558
2015 7 295 135
2020 7 667 090
2025 8 010 509
2030 8 317 707
2035 8 587 050
2040 8 823 546
2045 9 025 982
2050 9 191 287

In any case, the issue isn't elbow room. It's availability of resources (food, fresh water, energy, etc.).

Re: Is It Wrong to Have Children?

Carl M — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 08:57:49 -0000

Pardon the formatting in the population numbers there. That is NOT how they appeared before I clicked "Submit." ANother try:

1950:2,535,093
1955:2,770,753
1960:3,031,931
1965:3,342,771
1970:3,698,676
1975:4,076,080
1980:4,451,470
1985:4,855,264
1990:5,294,879
1995:5,719,045
2000:6,124,123
2005:6,514,751
2010:6,906,558
2015:7,295,135
2020:7,667,090
2025:8,010,509
2030:8,317,707
2035:8,587,050
2040:8,823,546
2045:9,025,982
2050:9,191,287

Re: Ron Paul Thinks Evolution is Just a “Theory”, and Doesn’t Believe In It [With Quote]

Carl M — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 15:55:33 -0000

I'm saddened by the fact that the general public doesn't understand the word theory as used by scientists. We have a theory of gravity. That's right, Rukidden, gravity is a scientific theory. So is evolution.

For the record, LAWS of Physics are also theories. They are things that seem to be true and are used in drawing conclusions about the world. The law you refer to is the law of conservation of matter. It is no longer stated in that form of course since matter is created and destroyed all the time (it's what E=Mc^2 is all about). For the record, that law has absolutely nothing to say about evolution. (Evolution doesn't claim that matter is created!) Perhaps you're thinking of the law that says that the universe moves from order to disorder (this is called the Law of Entropy .. or the second law of thermodynamics). But this only says that a system with no external energy source will move in the direction of greater entropy (essentially the less ordered state). It does not say anything about systems with external energy sources (like that big ball of fusion we call the sun).

@Dan: Long ago you listed a bunch of beliefs of Ron Paul (ones that concerned you if I recall correctly). As I recall, several of them were deal breakers to me.

@Ruddiken: The current US administration has been quite power hungry and has even stepped on the constitution when it interfered with their power. This doesn't have anything to do with whether the president is or is not religious.

Re: Ron Paul Thinks Evolution is Just a “Theory”, and Doesn’t Believe In It [With Quote]

Carl M — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 20:29:24 -0000

@ Mike G.: His statement wasn't about natural selection. It was about creationism vs. evolution. But, it is true that he downplayed the importance. (I happen to disagree that it isn't an important reflection on his ability to serve as president in the 21st century.)

@RUKIDDEN: You are correct in implying that I do not agree 100 percent with any of the candidates. But, we are in the midst of an administration that is incredibly anti-science (by which I mean they ignore the advice of the scientific community at almost every turn). In the 21st century, I do not believe that we can afford to have a president who is unwilling to use the best science possible -- and one who allows his personal religious beliefs to trump scientific consensus is not one I could possibly support. As I am not a member of a political party, and as this means I cannot vote in the primary in Georgia, I have not made a decision about who to support. I have not followed the candidates well enough to know who has the most sensible plans (and in any case, I have no idea who will be left when I vote in November).

I will say this. When Republicans accuse Democrats of being the "Tax and Spend" party and offer themselves as the "Spend" party, I am offended. It is in fact the JOB of government to tax and spend. In the most basic terms, this is what governments do. One can certainly argue about how much they should spend and on what, but as for taxing .. it seems to me that the level of taxation ought to be determined by the level of spending. That is: Don't spend more than you take in from taxation. There have at certain times in the history of the US been valid arguments for deficit spending. I don't believe that this is such a time. People argue about small government vs large government without realizing the absurd fraction of the budget that goes to commitments that the government must keep. In 2002, Social Security, Medicare, and Interest on the debt together accounted for over 40 percent of the spending. National Defense was another 17 percent or so. There's only so much we can shrink the government (in dollar terms).

I will also say this. I'm OK with education being controlled locally ONLY if there is oversight. We need REAL standards in this country and in too many places we do not have them now. This is leading to a frightening future.

Re: Ron Paul Thinks Evolution is Just a “Theory”, and Doesn’t Believe In It [With Quote]

Carl M — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 07:22:56 -0000

"If you have a secret plan to keep crazies out of office for all time, why didn’t you use it in 2004?"

All I can do is try not to vote for the crazies, and to learn from history. I realize that Paul said that this is not an issue that he's concerned with .. and it was clear that he was trying to find the right way to express this. I suppose I don't see how someone who has a religious belief that "A" is true can make a decision that follows logically only if the scientific claim "B" is true (when B contradicts A). I know that sentence could have been phrased better, but I'll trust you all to be able to parse it.

"Also, you have a Department of Education now. Like the results?"

No. The state of education in the US is pathetic. "No Child Left Behind" should mean something that it doesn't. It should mean that no 4th grader exists who can't read, no 7th grader exists who can't handle fractions, etc. There is actually a VERY simple implementation. Until a child can read, they do not enter the 4th grade. In general: until a child has an appropriate mastery of the Nth grade curriculum, they do not move to grade (N+1). THIS is how we leave no child behind. THIS is how we get parents more interested in their children's education. The general public has NO CLUE how poor the education of their children is. It's not a huge secret, but people turn a deaf ear to things they don't want to hear. And, school systems that promote students who are not ready to move forward enable these deaf ears. But, the solution is not to abolish the Department of Education (as I'm sure someone named Captain Obvious must know).

Re: Imaginary Scaffolding: Geniuses and Religious Conservatives

Carl M — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:30:10 -0000

Daniel, I think you're oversimplifying on both sides here.

Those raised as super-geniuses are NOT told that they will succeed without having to put forth any effort. I don't think that ANY of them are told this. They're told that with hard work they can accomplish anything they put their mind to. This is not at all the same thing!!!!!!!!! There are some who excel in their early years without much apparent effort .. and they sometimes don't make the adjustment to later years when real effort is required. I assume that this is the sort you meant .. but these are not the ones raised as super-geniuses. Additionally, I think that you're off the mark in asserting that "the genius’s parents made their child successful — all without any work on the child’s part." First of all, there is certainly work on the child's part. Most of these children are given a LOVE of learning, but that doesn't mean that it isn't work .. it just means that it's FUN work for them. Secondly, saying that the parents made their child successful undermines your argument. If they're successful, then how do you argue that the outcome is "Geniuses who aren’t successful" ??

It may be true that there are some religious people who think that they are "automatically moral because of their religion," but this is certainly NOT what any of the major religions teach. Let's look at Christianity. It teaches that we are all sinners. That is, it teaches rather specifically nearly the opposite of what you claim. It is certainly true that there are people who believe that they are going to heaven and think that they can spot those who are not, but this is not the same thing as them believing that they are without sin. There are hypocrites in all circles - religious and non-religious. This is not an indictment of religion.

Re: Ron Paul Thinks Evolution is Just a “Theory”, and Doesn’t Believe In It [With Quote]

Carl M — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 11:35:00 -0000

"I imagine that schools would be able to teach whatever they wanted in the classrooms — evolution, creationism, flying-spaghetti-monster-ism… — that’s what freedom is about."

I'm all for freedom. But, IF we believe that an education is something we want to make available to our children .. for their good and for the good of the country, then we SHOULD believe that it should be a quality education. Requiring schools to have high standards and even to teach particular things is NOT anti-freedom. A candidate who believes that it is cannot get my vote.

Re: Ron Paul Thinks Evolution is Just a “Theory”, and Doesn’t Believe In It [With Quote]

Carl M — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 18:45:58 -0000

Hmmm. Once again, words are being put into my mouth.

First, I have never congratulated myself on being a rationalist in a world of superstition. It is true that I think that science ought to be the basis of policy and that I could not possibly vote for anyone who felt otherwise. But, this isn't the same thing at all.

Second, I have never even REMOTELY suggested that ONLY Washington can get parents to care about their children's education. I thought I was pretty clear, but let me quote myself:

"In general: until a child has an appropriate mastery of the Nth grade curriculum, they do not move to grade (N+1). THIS is how we leave no child behind. THIS is how we get parents more interested in their children’s education. The general public has NO CLUE how poor the education of their children is. It’s not a huge secret, but people turn a deaf ear to things they don’t want to hear. And, school systems that promote students who are not ready to move forward enable these deaf ears."

I blame the local school districts and it is ONLY in the local school districts that real change can happen. However, I do not trust local school districts to do this on their own. It's really that simple. Do I claim that the Department of Education has gotten it done? No. Obviously not.

More to say .. but need to go.

Re: Ron Paul Thinks Evolution is Just a “Theory”, and Doesn’t Believe In It [With Quote]

Carl M — Tue, 18 Dec 2007 21:48:17 -0000

Some schoolboard SOMEWHERE? If only it was only SOME schoolboard somewhere. You're quite right that the existence of a Department of Education has not meant widespread success in education. It doesn't follow that getting rid of it will result in a better situation. I think that oversight is essential. But, I NEVER said that direction from Washington is essential. It's a structure that is already in place and it seems to me a good place for the oversight. Nor did I say (or even HINT) that we should keep going down the same path.

What I said is that I don't trust local school boards to do the TOUGH things. Things like admitting that their local schools are failures .. like telling parents that their children are not ready for the Nth grade .. like telling taxpayers that they're going to need to pay more for the education of the children of their community .. like finding ways to solve these problems.

You say that when a local school board screws up, you can actually do something about it. Really? Well, I suppose that if MY local school board screws up, I can try to vote out someone on the board .. or even run to serve on the board. This might work in a community in which the citizens were educated and appropriately concerned about education. Things aren't so easy in most of the real world. There are many adults who vote for lower school taxes as soon as their children are out of the school system. They don't see the bigger picture. There are many adults who are concerned ONLY with their local school system and don't care if the ones in neighboring communities are failing. They don't see the bigger picture. There are many adults who are not educated themselves and do not have the ability to judge whether their local school system is failing their children or not .. and wouldn't know how to fix things if there was a problem.

How local should education be? County or City based? Entirely? Funding too? If funding is entirely local, then families in rural or poor counties are screwed. If funding is NOT entirely local, then the sources of the external funding have the right to know that their money is being used wisely. The schools need to be accountable. Suppose a local school doesn't have a good teacher of some subject (math, biology, English, French, ... whatever). The solution? Hire one. Well, sure .. if there is one to hire. What if there are not enough math (or whatever) teachers to go around? What if no French teachers want to teach in a small rural community when they can live in a city with more cultural activities? These issues are not easy to solve locally.

Education begins at home .. and in the local community, but it is too big an issue, too important an issue to handle (or at least to handle effectively) entirely at that level.

while I'm here ...
@ncloud: "The only legitimate role of the government is to use law (which is force verbalized) to protect the life and property of the citizens who created it." It is probably clear already, but I disagree. I think that there are MANY issues that fall reasonably in the role of government.

Re: Ron Paul Thinks Evolution is Just a “Theory”, and Doesn’t Believe In It [With Quote]

Carl M — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 08:42:57 -0000

@ Captain:

What you claim I said: “A candidate who believes that [a central education policy] is [”anti-freedom”] cannot get my vote”.

What I actually said: "Requiring schools to have high standards and even to teach particular things is NOT anti-freedom. A candidate who believes that it is cannot get my vote." I believe that oversight is critical to the establishment and maintenance of high standards. There are some who believe that taking any education decisions out of local hands is anti-freedom. I disagree with them and cannot support a candidate with those views.

When you put words in my mouth, you can indeed make it appear that I am contradicting myself.

It boils down to this. The education of the children of America is too important to leave entirely in local hands. If we believe in the American Dream, then I believe that it is important to give EVERYONE the opportunity to succeed. I believe that this requires that they have the opportunity to get a solid educational foundation. This is not happening now. (I think this is the one thing we agree on.) If education was left entirely to the local level, some school districts might improve. I think that many would get worse. I believe that a disproportionate number in impoverished areas and areas with parents who have relatively low levels of education (these are mostly the same areas) would find their school systems get worse, not better. So, the American Dream of "If you work hard, you can accomplish anything you put your mind to" would move even more from the ideal of applying to everyone (this is the ideal ... not reality at this point) to applying only to those fortunate enough to be born into an educated and/or relatively wealthy family. This is what I'm worried about. Without outside help, there are many parts of this country that do not have the resources to offer strong educational foundations to their children. And, once again, without oversight I don't trust school districts to make the tough decisions they need to make. It isn't enough that SOME school districts are willing to make them. They ALL must.

Re: Say Goodbye to U.S. Particle Physics

Carl M — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 13:22:40 -0000

So, Daniel, I gather that you're not a believer that government has no place except in preserving life and property.

Re: Say Goodbye to U.S. Particle Physics

Carl M — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:14:58 -0000

@ Tyler ... 17% agrees with the numbers he gave.

@ ncloud ... I disagree with your first sentence. No time to discuss the multitude of ways that I think the populace benefits from spending that is not directly related to defense. But, I respect your right to hold all of your opinions - both those I agree with and those I disagree with.

@ Daniel and all ... I'll be off the net for a while as I visit family. So, if any questions or comments are directed at me, this is why I'm not responding. Have a safe and peaceful holiday season.

Re: More Sickening Than Goatse, Tubgirl, and 2G1C Combined

Carl M — Fri, 04 Jan 2008 11:50:10 -0000

Nader. (enough said)

Re: Thoughts On Mobile Phone Driving Laws

Carl M — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 20:42:38 -0000

I think too that we are not yet used to the idea of hands free calling. Our brains understand conversing with someone sitting next to us even without looking at them as we talk. I had doubted this evidence (I'd heard it for a long time) until I got my first hands free set-up this past summer. It is NOT the same as conversing with a person sitting next to you. I don't know why exactly, but it is definitely not the same. I suspect that using a headset would be better ... I was using the bluetooth connection in my car when I realized that my attention was not as focused as it should have been on the road (no accidents or issues, but I could tell I wasn't focused in the same way as when conversing with others). Part of it too is that we're not used to stopping talking when on the phone. We do it all the time when conversing with someone in real-life. They see what is taking our attention for the moment .. the moment passes and the conversation continues naturally .. later we don't even realize that there was a pause. Being on the phone is different.

Re: Thoughts On Mobile Phone Driving Laws

Carl M — Mon, 14 Jan 2008 19:12:51 -0000

I'm not sure if this translates exactly, but I was just in the grocery store and there was a woman with a cell phone headset who was "driving" her cart like a complete idiot ... entirely clueless of her surroundings. So I take back my comment that headsets may be an improvement.

Re: Is Risk Assessment a Snake-Oil Discipline?

Carl M — Tue, 15 Jan 2008 21:24:58 -0000

I've no clue the precise way in which computer security professionals use risk assessment, but it's unlikely to be anywhere near as precise as what insurance companies do.

The insurance companies use past history to predict future probabilities. They're NOT predicting whether YOUR car will be stolen (or in an accident). They're predicting the probability that it will be stolen (or in an accident). It's not an educated guess so much as a scientific conclusion. If I see a coin come up heads 6 times in 9 tosses, I might bet that it is slightly biased in favor of heads and bet that it comes up heads on the next toss. I'd call this an educated guess. If I see the coin come up heads 512000 times in 1000000 tosses, I'd expect similar results in the next 1000000 tosses. This is a bit more solid. And if I merely predict that there will be fewer than 600000 tosses in the next 1000000 tosses, it's an extremely safe bet (EXTREMELY). Insurance companies have the advantage that things don't change all that quickly (usually) in the areas they are insuring. In City A, a certain percentage of cars will be stolen in a typical year. The percentage in City B is smaller, so the insurance premiums are lower (or at least that PART of the premium is lower). If more cars are stolen in City B one year, the insurance company will lose money there (or will have smaller profits), and they will adjust their premiums for next year (taking into account not only the recent events in City B but the trend they are a part of). The world of Information Security may change too fast for everything to be accounted for in a risk assessment (and the sample size may be too small to do more than make educated guesses). Additionally, insurance companies know the value of what is at risk. If this car IS one of the ones that is stolen, the company will be out a maximum of D dollars. This isn't to say that a very unlikely but widespread event can't be VERY costly for insurance companies. (There are plenty of companies that sell no new homeowner policies on the gulf coast.)

Re: Is Risk Assessment a Snake-Oil Discipline?

Carl M — Wed, 16 Jan 2008 15:10:26 -0000

My "mindset" about probability theory? I was just trying to help Daniel see that there MIGHT be a difference between what insurance companies do when insuring a car or home and what information security professionals do when putting together a risk assessment. I made no pretense to know anything about information security (so I probably should have kept out of the discussion entirely). I was just imagining him stopping by my office and asking if I had any views on this. It's not clear (to me) that I wrote anything more than a VERY BRIEF illustration of the kind of analysis that goes into insurance calculations. Everything I said about possible differences with information security was in an "it MAY be that" sort of way -- meant to allow Daniel with his understanding of information security to decide if there is any real difference.

Other than my simple (and simplistic) example, I don't see that I really wrote anything about probability theory. I mention this only in case anyone thought it was intended to be more than it was.

I suppose that the one thing I said that could be called a "mindset" is my attitude that tiny samples give less useful information than very large samples (and that's more a FACT than a mindset - I'd hate to think that anyone was using statistics and didn't have that mindset). Calling a prediction based on a tiny sample an "educated guess" and a prediction based on a very large sample something "more solid" was meant to help Daniel understand that what insurance companies do is "more solid" than what most people would mean when they use the term "educated guess". I think that insurance companies would cringe at the use of the word guess, but this is semantics. I was merely trying to point out that there are educated guesses and there are EDUCATED GUESSES.

Re: Is Risk Assessment a Snake-Oil Discipline?

Carl M — Thu, 17 Jan 2008 09:14:22 -0000

@Daniel

Relax. Apart from his trying to read between the lines of what I first wrote, any disagreement between Alex and me appears to be semantic. (Keep in mind that I remain ignorant of the application of risk analysis to information security and have said nothing about it.)

@Alex

I am usually pretty careful about what I say. For example, I didn't say that the precision in my 1000000 coin toss example was "necessary". It was meant to be an extreme example taken in contrast with my 6 of 9 example (which was fairly extreme on the low end of the spectrum). As I already said, I was using these examples to help Daniel see that not all educated guesses are created equal. (My post wasn't meant to be a treatise on probability theory.)

Interestingly, I checked the dictionary definitions of "educated guess" and "guess" before making my second post in this thread. We might as well avoid semantic arguments if possible.

Guess: an opinion that one reaches or to which one commits oneself on the basis of probability alone or in the absence of any evidence whatever.

Clearly, leaving out the "or in the absence of any evidence whatever", we are talking about this sort of guess. Unfortunately, the word "guess" conveys the "in the absence of any evidence whatever" to many people. So, one could certainly argue against the use of the word guess in this context. But, as I said, this is semantics. (Side note: this is the same issue that scientists must deal with when talking about things like the THEORY of evolution.)

Re: A Tax Rebate as an Economic Fix? Are They Serious?

Carl M — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 22:41:31 -0000

My understanding is that when they did the rebate thing some years back, most people saved the money rather than spending it. So, it didn't really work as a booster shot for the economy. (Which isn't to say that it wasn't helpful to people.)

In whatever form it eventually appears, what is being discussed amounts to a short-term tax-cut. That's all it is. While I agree with Daniel that the government is broke (hard to disagree on this one) and that we ought to be taking measures to correct this (or at least to prevent the debt from getting entirely out of control), one can impact the economy with tax policy. Lowering taxes during a recession CAN make economic sense. A corollary to this is that RAISING taxes during boom times can ALSO make economic sense. The ideal level of taxes is a shifting target (and the target is invisible, so nobody really knows where to aim). The fact is that if the tax rate is 0 percent, the government gets no money to spend on the things government needs to spend money on. If the tax rate is 100 percent, nobody would bother working, so the government also gets no money. The ideal rate (which maximizes the money the government brings in) is somewhere in between. Interestingly, to maximize revenue, a government needs a healthy economy, so there is an incentive for the government to do what it can along these lines. The Republican position is that the ideal tax rate is lower than it is now. During a recession, they may be right (probably are) -- and you will notice that Democrats are also in favor of a tax cut (in whatever form - Bernanke suggested that they be implemented quickly to help avoid recession, so that is what we will likely see). During prosperous times, I am always a bit skeptical with the Republican position that lower taxes are better. They always act like this is obvious. But, they do not give evidence that we are on that side of the ideal level. At any given moment, there IS an ideal level of taxes that maximizes the money the government takes in. This level is NEVER zero. So, there are at least SOME levels of taxation that are too low.

On the other hand (Kr0N), though we could use a good dose of infrastructure improvements, the situation is NOT the same as it was in the Great Depression. Unemployment is not particularly high at the moment. So, it isn't that there is a large number of people lining up looking for something productive to do. In 1930, unemployment grew from 3.2 percent to 8.7 percent. In 1931, it grew to 15.9 percent. In 1932, it hit 23.6 percent and peaked around 24.9 percent in 1933. It is currently at approximately 5 percent. We are NOT in the same situation.

Further (in response to the "How about we start making stuff again?" comment), it isn't clear that purchasing inexpensive products made outside of the US is necessarily bad for the US economy. The loss in manufacturing jobs on the one hand is balanced by lower prices for everyone on the other. Which is the more significant effect? It's hard to say.

Re: A Tax Rebate as an Economic Fix? Are They Serious?

Carl M — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 09:55:45 -0000

One cost of being entirely independent from the rest of the world would be a drop in standard of living (due to increased costs for manufactured items, etc.). In any case, I don't think this is the direction we need to head (and I don't see much support for such complete independence among Americans). I think that too many Americans seem to feel entitled to their standard of living (and to a continuing increase in standard of living, and to cheap oil, and to ...), and I think that this attitude needs to change. We need to learn to share the world with everyone else. One option is to turn inward and isolate ourselves from the world, but I don't see this as the best choice.

Finally, to borrow from a phrase I'm guessing you subscribe to: Dependencies don't cause evil. People cause evil.

Re: A Tax Rebate as an Economic Fix? Are They Serious?

Carl M — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 16:11:32 -0000

OK. I was responding to:

"We should be self-sufficient and not depending on other countries for things like oil and say…everything we use."

I was really arguing with the word "everything." I don't see that as being possible or even a reasonable goal. I certainly agree that we should be as self reliant as possible for our core needs (food, energy, etc.). I don't think it's necessary that we become 100 percent self reliant, but that's certainly a good goal. Part of achieving this will be to reduce our appetite for energy.

But, we're getting off topic here. The question is whether a short term economic stimulus can prevent (or shorten) a recession. The deeper or longer lasting a recession is, the less money we have to invest in solving the dependence problem you're talking about. Though a potential recession may not seem like our biggest concern at the moment, the economy is part of the infrastructure that is needed to attack our other problems. So, preventing a recession IS a part of the solution to those other problems.

Re: A Tax Rebate as an Economic Fix? Are They Serious?

Carl M — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 17:49:21 -0000

"That’s not tax relief..."

Again, this is semantics. It's certainly equivalent to tax relief (and this is how it will be described - correctly in my point of view).

Re: Maths

Carl M — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:40:14 -0000

That's good.

Re: A Hellen Keller Quote

Carl M — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 12:56:36 -0000

Absurd. Security is NOT an all or nothing thing. The claim that "Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure" is clearly not meant to be taken literally or at least not for all types of danger. As ncloud points out, Hellen Keller probably didn't play in traffic. Can we avoid all danger? No. Can we avoid SOME danger? Sure (and there are times that we should). I'm not sure ncloud really means what he says either. I'd probably agree if "it's worth the risk" was changed to "it may be worth the risk." (I'm not going to risk much for a small payout .. even if my survival isn't at risk.)

Re: A Hellen Keller Quote

Carl M — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 21:47:07 -0000

Yeah, I know. (I said that it wasn't meant to be taken literally.) I was actually agreeing with the slightly edited version of what ncloud said. I wholeheartedly agree that it is better to LIVE life than to cower in the perceived security of a sheltered life.

Re: Arbitrary

Carl M — Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:03:41 -0000

Beau is exactly right. They're trying to make you NOTICE the sign. It worked.

Re: Looking for an American Job

Carl M — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 13:31:07 -0000

Joe invents something one weekend. He gets a brilliant idea, sketches it out, and even builds a crude prototype to convince himself that it will really work. He's convinced that he'll make some money if he can get the item produced inexpensively enough. It's not something that people will pay big money for, but he's convinced that it will sell if the price is right. Where should Joe get the item manufactured so as to maximize his profits?

Re: Montel Pwns Fox News Simpletons

Carl M — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 07:24:01 -0000

I love the toss to the commercial. "We're talking to Montel Williams about .. Keith Ledger ..." That guy is just reading a script. In fact they weren't talking to him about that because he changed the subject.

Re: Montel Pwns Fox News Simpletons

Carl M — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 12:10:48 -0000

Actually, Montel didn't say that we shouldn't talk about Keith Ledger's death. He said that we should ALSO talk about the dead in the war.

This is nothing new. Americans seem to me to have a twisted sense of the relative worth of lives. JonBenet Ramsey's death probably got more news coverage than the cumulative coverage of every other murder in the US that year. I find that disgusting. Montel is making a similar point. How does Keith Ledger's death deserve more press coverage than the death of an American soldier who is killed on duty in Iraq?

Re: Is Pre Big-Bang Agnosticism a Belief?

Carl M — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 09:57:05 -0000

Their reply might be: He is a person I know well, this man in Guam. You could call him a friend I suppose. In any case, someone I trust saw his webcam broadcast online and he was standing on a couch, touching his nose, holding a newspaper, and wearing a yellow shirt. Of course, as always, his shoes were untied. That he served in Vietnam and got married on a Friday is not new information. This I know from my personal interaction with him. Why do you doubt this? What makes you so skeptical? If only you checked out his web page, he might reveal himself to you online. You should know though that he does not broadcast his webcam to all. Surely this doesn't mean that he is not real or that the broadcasts he DOES make aren't real.

Re: Is Pre Big-Bang Agnosticism a Belief?

Carl M — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:42:34 -0000

I've a couple of things to respond to.

First, I agree with Martin's first paragraph. But, I agree with Daniel's assertion that the example he gives of a form of strong atheism is a belief. Certainly MANY things other than belief in the existence of something ought to be classified as belief. Many people believe that a universe without a creator is impossible. Some believe that good and evil are meaningless outside of a religious context. Surely these are beliefs. If someone believes that there is no creator, surely this too qualifies as a belief (as distinguished from someone who simply asserts that the evidence presented to him or her so far falls short of being convincing evidence for such a creator).

Second, Daniel, in the context of your man in Guam, I wouldn’t find the response I posted particularly strange. (What you’re really asking is whether the analogous response to the question of whether a particular religion is true is strange. I guess this would depend on how good you think the analogy is.) Of course, you would probably agree that the existence of the man in Guam is verifiable to standards you would accept (thus asserting that the analogy isn’t perfect). You’ll claim that there’s a difference between the man in Guam and God. (I’d agree.) But let me continue with that analogy a bit to see where it might take us.

Our believer (the guy from my first post above) continues to urge you to view the website. He points out that even if you don’t believe that the Man was standing on a couch touching his nose, you have to at least admit that many of the things He has to say are Wise (yes, our believer like to use capital letters to show his respect for the man in Guam). The believer would have you believe that not only is the Man wise, but if everyone in the world lived according to the philosophy espoused by the Him, then the world would be a better place! So, partly to humor the believer, partly to gather evidence you can use in an argument against him, and partly to satisfy your own curiosity, you go to the website and read. There’s a lot of good stuff there. You notice a variation of the Golden Rule: “Treat others as you would wish to be treated.” You’d agree (I’d guess) that this is good advice, but you’re not convinced that this means that the man in Guam has anything worth your continued time. Still, you read on. You find a few other bits that make a lot of sense and taken as a package, you see evidence that this guy might be different from others. He makes sense. Maybe the world WOULD be a better place ... You also find some things that you find disturbing or simply wrong, but still, taking the parts that you like, you can see why someone might support this guy. This isn’t to say that you believe he exists. But, at least you can understand why people might wish to believe that such a person exists (even with the parts that you find disturbing or wrong).

Discussion questions:

In which contexts are the believer’s beliefs harmful (and to whom)?

In which contexts are they beneficial (and to whom)?

To what extent do these answers change if “Man in Guam” is replaced by “God?” (You’ll have to change the website to the Bible or other holy text.)

To what extent do these answers change if “Man in Guam” is replaced by “Ron Paul?” (You’ll not need to change anything else.)

Re: Outrageous Beliefs Are NOT Equal to Claims They Are Preposterous

Carl M — Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:46:51 -0000

Of course. But, it's only worth arguing when harm comes from the beliefs.

Re: Why People Go to Church

Carl M — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 09:45:57 -0000

Daniel,your response to ncloud contains assertions that are not supported by the article you posted. Nowhere in the article is there even a HINT of the argument that "if one is solid in a faith they should doing it alone, or with a family, or in a small church with little fanfare." I'm not sure where you've come up with that. Your second paragraph goes a bit beyond the article, but is certainly true (but there's no reason given that enjoying the sharing of a belief system with others is a bad thing - surely you enjoy having your own beliefs confirmed by others you respect). Anyway, it's your third paragraph I find most interesting. You seem to imply that it should be the other way around. That is, you seem to imply that religious people should ENJOY their beliefs. Are beliefs to be enjoyed? That hardly seems the point.

Re: Economy Failing, Exxon Making Record Profit

Carl M — Sun, 03 Feb 2008 20:06:21 -0000

John Anderson (a third party candidate in 1980) proposed a 50 cent a gallon gas tax. This is a GOOD idea. (1) The increased cost would be an incentive for people to use less gas. (2) The money raised could (should) be used to develop alternative energy sources.

I understand the negatives associated with such a tax, but I think that on the whole it would be a benefit to society (certainly if it had been imposed in 1980, we'd be using less oil now).

As long as Exxon is not doing anything illegal (price fixing, etc.), I don't have any problem with them making large profits. (I DO have a problem with the government giving tax breaks to oil companies .. particularly at a time that these companies have been making huge profits.)

Re: Question: When Do We, As Paul Supporters, Switch to Obama?

Carl M — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:03:42 -0000

I'm not sure if this will be seen by anyone since this thread is a bit old, but I find it interesting that in the following collection of tech-related questions, Obama and Paul agree on their answers to all but one question.

http://www.news.com/8301-135783-9864581-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-13-0-5

Re: Question: When Do We, As Paul Supporters, Switch to Obama?

Carl M — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:05:26 -0000

OK, that full link didn't paste correctly. Maybe with quotes? Anyway, it's interesting too that they were the only two that answered all of the questions.

"http://www.news.com/8301-135783-9864581-38.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-13-0-5"

Re: Question: When Do We, As Paul Supporters, Switch to Obama?

Carl M — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 09:07:08 -0000

Arrrgh .. it's taking an underscore as instructions to italicize. The link is on this page (for now):

feed://www.news.com/

Title: In '08 presidential race, who's the most tech-friendly?

Re: The Bomb Iran Song, by John McCain

Carl M — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 05:53:58 -0000

Right .. you'd also be pleased with the clip of Hillary speaking with a fake southern accent tom a southern group a year or so ago.

Re: McCain and Clinton? You’ve Got to Be F**king Kidding Me

Carl M — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 05:56:25 -0000

Well, McCain seems to have a huge lead, but why are you writing off Obama? He's not in the lead, but if my calculations are correct, the race is not nearly over and he's been gaining. If the media would just report news instead of telling people what they believe, we'd be in better shape going forward.

Re: The Bomb Iran Song, by John McCain

Carl M — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 07:19:51 -0000

Well, now I feel like an idiot. Fox News took her accented speech out of context (why should I be surprised?) and it was this out-of-context clip that spread and that I saw (and I'll admit, I thought she was an idiot when I saw it). Here's a link to the Fox Clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaDQ1vIuvZI&feature=related

... and here's a clip of the same thing .. but IN CONTEXT:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqj_JGwGTXA&feature=related

It's frightening how effective the media can be at influencing opinion.

Re: Obama on Religion in America

Carl M — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 12:02:52 -0000

Quite good. I'm glad that he said it and that you saw it. It's what I've been trying to say about religion. It's true that there are hypocrites in every religion. It does not follow that everyone in those religions is a hypocrite. It is true that there are those who abuse religion and wield it as a weapon. This does not mean that religion itself is a problem.

It's too bad that this doesn't boil down to a sound bite.

Re: How to Set Women Back 50 Years

Carl M — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 07:25:50 -0000

Well, some of the criticism in that thing is questionable and only there to make it seem that every sentence had something wrong with it. More importantly, I think that the reader had a faulty sarcasm detector.

Re: A Condensed, Illustrated Argument Against Religion by Christopher Hitchens

Carl M — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 16:51:34 -0000

Obama's speech that you posted recently is a great rebuttal to the last bit of this. Hitchens is incredibly cynical (I saw him in a debate in Madison, WI years ago -- he's a brilliant speaker, but incredibly full of himself [Rumsfeldian arrogance] and incredibly cynical). He (Hitchens) implies here that religion prevents us from being what we can be as a species. While it's hard to argue that people have done great damage in the name of religion, I think it goes FAR too far to imply that religion prevents us from reaching our full height as a species.

Re: A Condensed, Illustrated Argument Against Religion by Christopher Hitchens

Carl M — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 20:07:16 -0000

Of course I meant it's hard to argue that people have NOT done great damage in the name of religion ...

Re: CSRF is Wicked

Carl M — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:41:55 -0000

Pardon my ignorance of the subtleties, but am I understanding correctly that this is a cookie-based vulnerability? That is, if one removes all cookies when exiting a browser session (or even more frequently), is one at least somewhat protected from this sort of attack?

Re: A Simple View of Sugar and Sugar Substitutes

Carl M — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 10:25:49 -0000

Daniel,

This post surprises me coming from you. This is NOT a sentence I'd expect from someone with even a basic understanding of science: "So these are cheater chemicals designed for lazy people who don’t understand enough about science to realize that they’re likely dangerous." How do you come to the conclusion that they are "likely dangerous." Because they are artificial? Why not let the science determine whether or not they are dangerous?

How do you define "eat too much" ? You could eat celery all day long and lose weight. I assume you mean "take in too many calories," and I assume that "too many" means more than are used in a day at one's current level of exercise. How does one fix this? Take in fewer calories or burn more calories (or both). Does "take in fewer calories" mean "eat less"? Not necessarily. It means eat differently.

You realize that most of the fat and sugar "substitutes" have not been created from scratch. In fact, many are just fats and sugars that have been modified (by making them too large or whatever) so they can't be digested. The contain energy (calories), but our bodies don't see those calories because they pass through us undigested.

This isn't to say that there couldn't be downsides. I don't think that there's any scientific evidence that they are poisonous (alarmist websites to the contrary). But, there does seem to be evidence that the sweet taste of artificial sweeteners has an effect on the body .. preparing it to expect calories. When the calories don't follow, hunger does .. which can spur excessive eating.

Two years ago, I would drink between 2 and 3 cans of sugary soda a day. I did the calculation and the excess calories from these drinks were the equivalent of about half a pound of excess body weight a week. That is: If the rest of my diet was in balance with my burned calories, I'd gain about 25 pounds a year! I had gained weight, but not at that rate. I cut out the sugary drinks (replacing them with calorie free diet alternatives with artificial sweeteners). I cut back a bit on portion sizes, and I lost about 50 pounds from my peak weight. When I got to my goal weight, I went back to my usual eating habits (but stayed on the diet drinks) and I've been able to keep my weight quite steady for quite a while now.

Unless you believe the alarmist web sites that claim that 9/11 was secretly plotted by the US government, don't give such credence to the alarmist web sites that call the artificial sweeteners poison. Stick to science.

Re: A Simple View of Sugar and Sugar Substitutes

Carl M — Sat, 16 Feb 2008 13:40:53 -0000

You're right, kickstand, that's BASICALLY what Daniel is saying, and if he had said just that, I'd not have posted a reply. I think that when one makes an argument for a position, one should be careful to stick to the facts. If one part of your argument can be struck down, then people are less likely to take the remainder of the argument seriously. I know Daniel and know him to be an intelligent, thoughtful and highly curious person. Really, I'm trying to help him avoid overreaching when he states his opinions (regular readers of this blog will recognize that I most often post [lengthy] replies when I see logical errors in an argument .. I don't necessarily argue for the other side .. I merely point out flaws that I perceive in an argument).

For anyone interested in losing weight, there's an interesting guide to losing weight (pay no attention to the subtitle which is meant to be humorous) available online at:
http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/www/hackdiet.html
It's called The Hacker's Diet and contains quite a number of useful ideas. Boiled down to one sentence it says: If you want to lose weight, you must burn more calories than you take in. That's really all weight loss (or weight gain) is -- calorie differential. If all you consider is weight loss/gain, it's not about anything else. (Of course there's more to healthy eating than the number of calories.) I highly recommend the computer tools available on that site (for charting weight over time).

Re: A Simple View of Sugar and Sugar Substitutes

Carl M — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 18:31:28 -0000

@ Daniel

Just don't use the word "likely" .. why not say something like "the science is still out and they MAY be dangerous" ? It's the word "likely" that hurts your argument. What if someone on the other side of the argument said "they're likely safe" ? How would you respond?

Re: Hypocrisy

Carl M — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:55:49 -0000

I don't agree with your premise, Daniel. Most of the religious people I have known and respected do not believe that only members of their religion will get into heaven (whatever they believe heaven to be). They don't pretend to know the mind of God. To be sure, there are plenty who do make such assertions, but I don't believe that they are in the majority. For that matter, there isn't even universal agreement as to what heaven is (or what hell is for that matter). In any case, I don't believe "that most religious people do believe what’s espoused in the first two frames."

Re: A Simple View of Sugar and Sugar Substitutes

Carl M — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 07:56:50 -0000

I disagree strenuously.

Re: A Simple View of Sugar and Sugar Substitutes

Carl M — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:26:18 -0000

I rushed my reply because I was heading to class. I'm back and will respond to post 7 in more detail.

<ul>
<li>It's not easy to create an artificial substance that is safe.</li>
</ul>

This may or may not be true, but I'm willing to accept this premise for the purposes of this argument. I think that it's plausible that it's not easy to create a high-demand artificial substance that is safe.

<ul>
<li>It's not easy to replace natural substances.</li>
</ul>

Again, I'll accept this premise for the purposes of this argument.

<ul>
<li>It's lucrative to put something out there that claims to do these things.</li>
</ul>

True.

From these premises you conclude: Hence, it’s “likely” that the things being put out by these companies are NOT safe. --- This conclusion does not logically follow from the premises.

"It's not easy" means that it will take effort. Do you assert that the companies haven't put forth the effort to develop such things? If you do not, then your "It's not easy" statements have no place in your argument.

"It's lucrative" means that there is money to be made. This justifies the hard work in overcoming the "it's not easy" does it not? Are there people out to make a quick buck? Sure. Does this mean that "it’s “likely” that the things being put out by these companies are NOT safe" ? No. Are you so cynical to believe that every time there is money to be made that those making it are doing so at the expense of others? You make money. Do you try to help your clients or do you just want their money? I make money. Do I want to help my students or do I just want a paycheck? (You're going to accuse me of having the liberal lens problem again .. I just know it.) :)

Take a close look at your closing paragraph:

"I agree this isn’t solid in terms of evidence I’m providing, but I think it survives the standard common sense test and could be supported easily by anyone willing to put in the effort to do the hours of research required to back it up."

This paragraph is devoid of any value as far as supporting your argument is concerned.

Let me put it in a context you will grasp quickly. Imagine that you are in a conversation with someone and are talking about evolution. He claims that the eye could not have evolved and gives the "Blind Watchmaker" analogy. He then says

This is actually not an uncommon sort of statement. Your reply would be ... ?

Re: A Simple View of Sugar and Sugar Substitutes

Carl M — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 09:30:19 -0000

@ Maxo,

I'll look at the link, but right from the start there is a flaw:

"OSHA, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration classifies methanol, formaldehyde and formic acid, components of aspartame as hazardous."

Sodium is hazardous.
Chlorine is hazardous.
Table salt is not.

That the components of a chemical are hazardous does not imply that the chemical compound is hazardous.

The fact that this is the leading statement on the page indicates to me that they are grasping at straws. But, as I said, I'll take a look.

Re: Are We Closer to Revolution Than We Think?

Carl M — Sun, 24 Feb 2008 11:15:05 -0000

So .. the question is ..

Does electing a woman or minority president constitute a revolution?

Re: My Thoughts on Depression

Carl M — Sat, 01 Mar 2008 19:52:24 -0000

I haven't looked at the BBC piece yet, but my understanding is that there is a difference between being depressed and having clinical depression.

Re: This Doesn’t Happen in Countries That Aren’t Close to Social Collapse

Carl M — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:23:03 -0000

Clearly true: "They are purely selfish and view $30 as more valuable than the physical safety of others."

It's not clear to me how multiculturalism is to blame. ... and ... " so-called 'country' " ???
The US has always been a collection of people from other countries. I agree that the values of the country have changed in recent decades, but it's not even clear to me that this is due to an influx of people from other countries. You've said it yourself in this blog: Who is it that has the work ethic that we think of as so essential to American values? (Your answer was that the hard working foreign nationals who do things like run gas stations exemplify this work ethic more than the (so-called?) Americans who complain about them.) Who do we blame for the apathy we see in so many of our students? Immigrants? I don't think so. Who do we blame for a government that thinks that their job is to protect and defend lives at the cost of protecting and defending the constitution (which is what their job description actually entails)?

It is indeed sickening that people would be so selfish that they would endanger the lives of others for a "prize" worth $29. But, these were greedy Americans - perhaps you've encountered the type.

Re: This Doesn’t Happen in Countries That Aren’t Close to Social Collapse

Carl M — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 13:12:43 -0000

Of course, PGC, but multiculturalism isn't about looking at people and seeing only differences. In my view, the whole POINT of multiculturalism is to see that despite differences, we are all people and are all essentially the same at some fundamental level. The point is that we should not fear (or worse - hate) others because of our differences. We should understand that we all have hopes and dreams; we all love; we all want what is best for the world; and we all have a basic core morality. "We all" refers to the different cultures of the world. Of course there are amoral individuals in ALL cultures.

Re: This Doesn’t Happen in Countries That Aren’t Close to Social Collapse

Carl M — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:09:14 -0000

Daniel said: "They polled for how much people trust their neighbors in various parts of the country. Homogeneous areas up north and in the midwest scored really high; the place where I grew up scored really low. Why? Multiculturalism."

No. You mean to say: "Why? Because there is a mix of cultures that have not tried to understand each other and (due to their ignorance) fear and distrust each other." This is not "multiculturalism."

ncloud said "The fact that we welcome people from every nation to become American citizens does not mean that we are welcoming them to establish islands of their own culture within the American border."

Establishing islands of their own culture isn't the problem. It's the isolationist nature that these islands sometimes have. It seems to me that overcoming this isolationist nature is what "multiculturalism" is about.

In any case, I'm not convinced that the chaos at the give-away had ANYTHING to do with multiculturalism however you choose to define it.

Re: This Doesn’t Happen in Countries That Aren’t Close to Social Collapse

Carl M — Sun, 02 Mar 2008 18:10:27 -0000

... oh ... and it certainly isn't evidence of impending social collapse. It's about greed and selfishness (two different things) .. not about social collapse or multiculturalism.

Re: Sorry Ron, I’m Voting for Obama

Carl M — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:46:30 -0000

@Ken: "I can not support socialized anything!! This will only help destroy our country."

So, presumably all roads paid for by a gas tax or tolls. All other infrastructure paid for ONLY by those who use it and not by those who benefit only indirectly.

Re: Racism Strikes Again: Hispanics and Old People Screw The Country by Refusing to Vote For Obama

Carl M — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 09:10:20 -0000

Did I miss something? Obama still has the delegate lead, doesn't he?

Re: Racism Strikes Again: Hispanics and Old People Screw The Country by Refusing to Vote For Obama

Carl M — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 17:11:23 -0000

The Democratic Party can't seat those two delegations (not as voting delegations anyway) without angering a LOT of people. You simply can't change the rules in the middle of the game. While it is true that voter turnout was decent in those states, it is also true that there were people who didn't vote in the democratic primary because there was no point .. and if I'm not mistaken, Clinton was the only Democrat on the ballot in one of those states.

I heard talk today that there may be movement to having NEW primaries in those states. I'm curious to know what will happen, but if they simply decide to seat those delegations, I will be one of the angry ones (I'm a bit of a stickler for following rules that you lay out).

Re: This Dude’s Serious About His Jimmy Dean Sausage (NSFW)

Carl M — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:05:18 -0000

lol

Re: This Girl Invented Her Own Virulent Strain of Affluenza

Carl M — Fri, 14 Mar 2008 08:09:26 -0000

I agree 100% with ncloud.

Re: Details

Carl M — Wed, 19 Mar 2008 07:34:37 -0000

Wait. My entire world-view is coming apart. You mean that when someone says that something is "common knowledge," it isn't necessarily true? The next thing you're going to tell me is that when someone says "I'm not going to lie to you" it means that they are about to lie to you. Come on. I wasn't born yesterday! (Really, I wasn't.)

Re: TED: How Our Education System Kills Creativity

Carl M — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 20:45:18 -0000

Interesting .. but the world is not so simple a place. In the news this very day ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7306590.stm

Anecdotal data is not something upon which one ought to build a foundation for the future.

That said, I certainly can't disagree with his main premise .. that there are some serious deficiencies in our educational system.

Footnote: I thought he was going to say that the aliens would say that education is designed to make business men .. or to prepare people to work in some sort of business / middle management kind of job. It would be clear to aliens that we keep score by awarding points (money). To assert that the aliens would think that professors are at the top of the heap is laughable. Except at top research academies (or in fields like business), college and university faculty are not at the top of the salary heap.

Check it out for yourselves (this link is for the University System of Georgia):

https://www.audits.state.ga.us/esa/filter.aud

Re: TED: How Our Education System Kills Creativity

Carl M — Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:18:50 -0000

The thing is .. the vast majority of professors are at institutions that focus on education. These professors are teachers and strive to help the next generation(s) discover knowledge. They don't live in their heads (as the speaker so disparagingly put it), communication is at their core, and they're (obviously) not in it for the money.

Re: Promiscuous Women Tend to be Unhappy

Carl M — Sun, 30 Mar 2008 19:43:19 -0000

Change "women" to "people" and you've got an equally true statement (for all the same reasons).

Re: Promiscuous Women Tend to be Unhappy

Carl M — Mon, 31 Mar 2008 07:51:32 -0000

I'll correct my statement somewhat. Remove "for all the same reasons." The reasons are not the same. But I would quarrel with your last paragraph a bit. From whose perspective are the men "balanced and happy" ?

Of course when you include the modifier "doesn't necessarily" I have to agree with the statement, but can't you add those words to the original statement? That is:
Finding a woman that sleeps with lots of men doesn’t necessarily indicate that she’s troubled.

Re: Hilary is Evil

Carl M — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 13:57:30 -0000

Yeah, I've seen this before .. "As far as I know" .. inexcusable.

I agree with Jason that A problem is that people are worried about the possibility that he's a Muslim, but I think that there's ANOTHER problem too -- that there are (apparently MANY) people who are willing to believe it. I have a theory that such people are grasping at straws. They don't want to be perceived as racist (and perhaps don't even believe that they are racist), so they grab at something else. And they'll tell you that it isn't that he's a Muslim that worries them .. it's that he is lying about being a Christian. It's really quite amazing that such stupidity can exist in the 21st century.

Re: The Pharmaceutical Industry is Criminal

Carl M — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 14:25:12 -0000

Daniel,

Stop saying absurd things like: "Seriously people — don’t take new drugs put out by the pharmaceutical companies. They’re very likely to be dangerous."

How many new drugs come out in a year? How many are eventually found to be dangerous? I know that it will reduce the sting from your argument, but why not say something based on fact like "I would urge caution in using drugs that are new to the market. There is a non-zero and non-trivial chance that they are dangerous. Try existing drugs with long track records first and only then, if they don't work, and if the disease you're treating is serious enough to warrant it, try the new drugs. Just remain vigilant to the possibility of side-effects."

Carl

Re: The Pharmaceutical Industry is Criminal

Carl M — Sun, 06 Apr 2008 18:07:36 -0000

"They lack precision of any sort, and we rarely understand how or why they work at all. Sure, doctors provide some granularity to their explanations, but most people don’t realize how short our understanding really is."

Doctors know relatively little about the mechanism of how drugs work. I don't see this as a problem any more than the fact that an artist may not know what the physics is behind color. Pharmacists actually have much more training in drugs than do doctors and typically have more up-to-date knowledge. But, human understanding of the mechanisms that make drugs work has come a long way in recent years and that understanding will continue to accelerate. It is only recently that drugs could be DESIGNED to do specific things. In the past it was mostly hit and miss.

"The only difference is that drugs may seriously mess you up as opposed to giving you a blue screen or leaving you stranded on the side of the road."

Another difference is that NOT taking drugs can leave you dead as opposed to being slightly behind the technology curve. The risks involved in not having the latest version of an operating system are small. The risks in not taking a new drug (which may be the ONLY drug that effectively treats some disease) may be quite large.

It just isn't so simple as "don't take new drugs."

Re: The Pharmaceutical Industry is Criminal

Carl M — Tue, 08 Apr 2008 11:09:57 -0000

"But, how did it happen in the first place? Too Much Trust."

That's a part of the problem, but there's another (equally important) part. Impatience.

Cynics will say that those with the most impatience are the pharmaceutical companies who are impatient to rake in big profits, but it's not just them. There's a serious problem with the impatience of people in the US (and elsewhere) who hear about drug research and hear that there is a possible cure (or treatment) for (fill-in-the-blank). They yell and scream about the long drug approval process. Are there problems with some drugs? Yes. Are there things that can be done to improve the approval process? Yes. Should we do everything we can to improve the process and improve the safety for those taking the drugs? Of course.

Here is the question:

Are we better off with the current situation than we would have been without ANY of the drugs (particularly the "new" drugs of the last 50 years or so)?

I'd say that the answer is yes.

This isn't to say that people don't die because of the specific drugs they have taken. I'm simply asserting that MORE people would have died if the full set of drugs didn't exist. There has been a net improvement in health and life-span.

Re: What I Want to See in iPhone 2.0

Carl M — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 06:50:44 -0000

Wouldn't video chat require that the camera pointed to the face of the camera? Wouldn't that make using it as a camera or video recording device difficult? I can just about guarantee that they're not going to put any moving parts on it. I suppose they could have two lenses for the camera, but I seriously doubt it. Actually, video chat would be cool, and I'd be OK if they replaced ALL camera features with it. I just don't get wanting ti capture 4 or 6 MP of information with a tiny phone-camera lens. The pictures wouldn't be significantly better than the current ones. If you want to take quality pictures or video get a camera or video camera.

I have my own list of things I want to see:

<ol>
<li>Some scale information on the maps.</li>
<li>The ability to view location pins for our own list of things (like a set of contacts or all contacts). This would be at least as useful as being able to see seafood restaurants.</li>
<li>Some scale information on the maps.
(Seriously, the maps would be MUCH more useful.)</li>
</ol>

Re: What I Want to See in iPhone 2.0

Carl M — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 20:02:30 -0000

Bluetooth Keyboard ... VERY cool idea.

Digicam integrated taser ... lol.

Re: The Only Three Ways McCain Can Win in 2008

Carl M — Sun, 20 Apr 2008 20:11:16 -0000

There's nothing to say that the Democrat will be ahead in the polls leading up to the election. We'll have to see what happens.

But ... I've never heard this claim made about Pearl Harbor. Perhaps there is actual evidence for this, but surely you're not a conspiracy theorist willing to buy into anything a website puts out there.

Re: The Only Three Ways McCain Can Win in 2008

Carl M — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 07:26:32 -0000

"borderlining on fact" is not exactly high praise for the theory.

Re: Pew: Immigrants Work Harder Than Blacks at Low-Paying Jobs

Carl M — Wed, 14 May 2008 08:58:53 -0000

I would point out that there are VERY few people (perhaps as few as zero) who are in a position to judge something like this. In any case, those who were surveyed are unlikely to be among those (again .. if any exist) who have the necessary information to make a valid judgement.

Re: A Very Sad Look at American Education

Carl M — Thu, 15 May 2008 08:20:56 -0000

For those who read the article in the link above ...

Back when The Wizard of Oz was made, I think that most adult viewers realized that the scarecrow botched the Pythagorean Theorem when he got his diploma (it was social commentary). Now, most adult viewers don't even catch that (though they might feel something is somehow wrong).

Re: Saudi Arabia is the Worst

Carl M — Mon, 19 May 2008 15:06:22 -0000

"I grew out of my absolute moral relativism stage when I was in my 20’s."

... and yet you use the term "fashion conscious" as a compliment when I think that you probably mean only to say that they are FREE to express themselves through fashion as well as in other ways.

Fashion consciousness is not in the same class as intelligent or educated. (Paris Hilton is fashion conscious.)

Re: Can You Find The Mason-Dixon Line On This Map?

Carl M — Fri, 23 May 2008 15:49:51 -0000

I would point out that it's not clear precisely what IQ measures, though one of those things that it measures is the extent to which individuals have LEARNED certain skills. Unless we understand what IQ measures, we can't hope to fully understand the implications of the data.

Still, that doesn't mean that we can't look at the picture and come to some conclusions.

One of the thing that is correlated to learning is reading for pleasure. One of the things that is correlated to reading for pleasure is the number of books in the house. One of the things that is inversely correlated to this is poverty. So, we'd expect high poverty to be correlated with low IQ. I'm making no assertion about how strong we might expect this correlation to be, and I've not even mentioned that starting the day hungry is likely to make learning difficult.

Another thing that is correlated with learning is the value placed on education by the parents. This in turn is highly correlated with the parents having had solid educations themselves. It is true that there are MANY parents who did not receive good educations and who nonetheless understand the value of a solid education for their children. However, these parents are likely to be more poorly equipped to help their children succeed in school then those parents who are better educated. So, we'd expect the level of parental education to be correlated with high IQ. (There is a wealth component to this as well ... well educated parents will tend to earn more .. and will thus be able to provide for their children in many ways - not just in the ways in which they make clear the value of education.)

Yet another thing that is correlated with learning is student attitude. Good teachers can do a lot to bring about positive attitudes toward learning, but peers have an even greater impact. Friends in school, neighbors, and so on all set the tone for students' attitudes toward their education. When a culture does not value education, it is more difficult (but far from impossible) for the students from within that culture to succeed.

Finally, I think that Todd is right. There's less to do in the long dark Northern winters. Perhaps this leads to more reading. One thing for certain. There is a different work ethic up there -- not just among students.

Re: Can You Find The Mason-Dixon Line On This Map?

Carl M — Sat, 24 May 2008 10:47:32 -0000

Civilization started fairly close to the equator.

The fertile crescent, Ancient Egypt, Rome, Incas, Aztecs were all closer to the equator than to the poles.

Re: Amazing: Why More Women Aren’t in Science and Engineering

Carl M — Mon, 26 May 2008 20:17:40 -0000

At the risk of sounding overly PC, I don't think that the statement that women don't choose to enter Science and Engineering fields at the same rates as men really tells the whole story.

Until recently, society spelled out in subtle and not-so-subtle ways which jobs (and interests) were appropriate for males and which were appropriate for females. People were raised their entire lives in a setting that essentially brainwashed them into believing that certain jobs (really MOST jobs) were gender specific. One could have said in the 50's. Gee .. why are more women nurses, teaching K-12, or staying at home and not looking at other options? ANSWER: Because they CHOOSE these lives. But, I hope you can see that this answer in the 50's would not have really told the full story. We've certainly come a long way since then! But, does anyone doubt that there are still girls in high school making a choice between being "smart" or being "popular"? There are entire cultures with the same issue: doing well in school isn't valued. If you asked people in those cultures why they are doing what they're doing, they'll say it was their choice. This answer isn't telling the full story.

Re: Amazing: Why More Women Aren’t in Science and Engineering

Carl M — Mon, 26 May 2008 20:25:00 -0000

OK, I've read the article now. :)

First of all, you should change your title. The article does NOT say that women aren't going into science. It says that they're making different choices in the TYPE of science they pursue.

They seem to have looked only at students who had demonstrated HIGH ability (so they weren't looking at those who "chose" not to live up to their full potential). They found difference. Not surprising. But, I submit that the raw numbers of women in scientifically demanding fields is diminished for the reasons I expressed above.

Re: Amazing: Why More Women Aren’t in Science and Engineering

Carl M — Tue, 27 May 2008 21:37:01 -0000

Two quotes from the article (which is talking about TWO studies):

"One study of information-technology workers found that women's own preferences are the single most important factor in that field's dramatic gender imbalance."

This study apparently talked only about IT.

"Another study followed 5,000 mathematically gifted students and found that qualified women are significantly more likely to avoid physics and the other "hard" sciences in favor of work in medicine and biosciences."

Medicine and biosciences are sciences. As a group, scientifically strong women make different choices than scientifically strong men. This doesn't say that they aren't choosing STEM fields.

One of the studies indicates that fewer women choose IT careers (but doesn't address whether they go into other STEM fields). The other study indicates that women choose different STEM fields -- not that they aren't in STEM fields at all.

(Thus, I have an issue with your title.)

As to your other question to me:

As far as I can tell, both studies are looking ONLY at those men and women who demonstrated strength in STEM subjects. Neither one addresses the larger issue of why the number of women in this group is smaller (if in fact it is) than the number of men. I would maintain that THIS is the more important issue. If women (and minorities) are STILL being socialized away from STEM fields by the time they leave (or even ENTER) high school, then we are doing everyone a disservice. As Doris points out, there could well be a larger number of talented workers in STEM fields -- and this could only help our society.

Re: Say Goodbye to U.S. Particle Physics

Carl M — Thu, 29 May 2008 10:48:25 -0000

Not sure if this link will work .. or if you are given a heads up by the software when someone posts to an old post. Anyway, Fermilab got a large donation from an individual who apparently cares about US science.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-107843-9954648-7.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-13-0-5

Re: Socialism, Anarchy and Ideal Government

Carl M — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 08:08:46 -0000

If we've learned ANYTHING from history, we've learned that greed is a part of the human condition. To assume that this will ever change is something I can't do.

Re: Socialism, Anarchy and Ideal Government

Carl M — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 21:49:48 -0000

@Maxo,

I understand what Daniel wrote, and I understand what you wrote: "To me, and most socialists I have met, socialism is the ideal of working towards anarchy. Not anarchy in the sense of no government, but anarchy in the sense of not needing government."

MY statement that greed is a part of the human condition was meant to be understood to be a statement that I do not believe that we will ever (in our lifetimes ... and probably not EVER) reach a point that humanity without government is better overall than humanity WITH government.

I agree completely that humanity as a whole would be better if everyone lived as you do (doing the "right" thing always) and I too try to live up to this ideal. But, I don't pretend that everyone will ever live like this. Keep in mind that the vast majority of people DO live like this (some of them do so because we have laws .. others do so because they understand that it is the best for humanity as a whole -- call it the Golden Rule if you like). But, that small minority that doesn't behave themselves WITH laws is not going to behave themselves WITHOUT laws. It's just not going to happen. We will ALWAYS need rules and enforcers of those rules.

Re: Ah, So This is How They Do It…

Carl M — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 07:59:09 -0000

You should take that stuff with a grain of salt. For example, the disaster relief stuff is quite slanted. To fault religious people for providing disaster relief is absurd. Contrary to what is implied at your link, they do not place conditions on the relief. This isn't to say that they do not make their religions known as they often do, but their "strategy" (if it must be called that) is to live by example. The idea isn't to say "We'll give you this help if you convert to Christianity" but to say "We'll give you this help because it is the right thing to do and as Christians we are obligated to help our fellow man - regardless of his religion, his race, etc."

I'm sure that there are some things on that page that are accurately portrayed, but my impression is that the person or people who put the page together have an axe to grind and are either exaggerating or picking the worst of all examples and holding them out as typical.

Re: Silly Question: Why Aren’t Russians Considered Asians?

Carl M — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:29:26 -0000

Am I the only one who finds it amusing that in a post about labeling people from various continents, you used the word Americans to refer to US citizens?

Re: Silly Question: Why Aren’t Russians Considered Asians?

Carl M — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:01:28 -0000

@Adrian Interesting. Now, are there any non-US sites that call us Americans? As for the US vs USA .. we were the USA at least through the 1980 winter olympics. I'm not sure when US became more widely used, but it's just laziness.

This isn't to say that US is entirely new. Indeed the Dollar sign began as an overlapping US ..
this became an S with two vertical lines through it (basically the bottom part of the U disappeared) and now there's only ONE vertical line (laziness again).

Anyway, I still find it amusing (in an ironic sort of way) that the word Americans was used in this post.

Re: A Three Sentence Description of Solid Foreign Security Policy: AKA “How Non Interventionism Increases Security”

Carl M — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 07:26:57 -0000

The word "obliterate" is problematic and (depending on the threat) is unlikely to earn anyone a standing ovation.

Re: A Three Sentence Description of Solid Foreign Security Policy: AKA “How Non Interventionism Increases Security”

Carl M — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 09:03:42 -0000

Daniel,

You broke the hypothetical world into two groups: 95% love us, 5% threaten us. Then you use the word obliterate for that 5%. My point is that not every threat requires obliteration. This is the sort of thinking that gets people (and countries) into trouble.

It just sounds too much like: "Either you love us or we are free to obliterate you." In fact, it is logically equivalent to this statement.

Re: Silly Question: Why Aren’t Russians Considered Asians?

Carl M — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 12:48:42 -0000

In any case, the fact is that "Asians" doesn't refer (only) to continental origin any more than "Americans" does. It's essentially the same thing -- usage overpowering word origin.

The irony I referred to earlier was really Daniel answering his own question with his own usage of the word "Americans."

Re: Silly Question: Why Aren’t Russians Considered Asians?

Carl M — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:16:53 -0000

But it's essentially the same. You know what YOU mean by the term "Asians." The fact is that others mean essentially the same thing. You don't question the use of the word "American" for a small subset of those living in the Americas. Why would you question the use of the word "Asian" for a subset of those living in Asia? I know you weren't stating that it should be used one way or the other. I just see the two words (and their usages as it turns out) as essentially the same.

Re: Silly Question: Why Aren’t Russians Considered Asians?

Carl M — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:17:23 -0000

and .. yes .. I know you began with "Silly question..."

Re: All of These People Are Meeting Right Now, But Nobody’s Covering It?

Carl M — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:22:02 -0000

Well, at least Ken's point is easy to answer. Perhaps they believe that media attention would only foul things up. Lots of people have ideas that are good for the world (or might be) and they don't seek media attention until they have something READY to announce. Attention too soon and people might not get the full picture.

Disclaimer ... I give essentially no credence to the rants of conspiracy theorists.

Re: All of These People Are Meeting Right Now, But Nobody’s Covering It?

Carl M — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 20:59:22 -0000

On the other hand, if this is real, it seems a bit strange that the media doesn't appear to cover it at all. To answer your question, Daniel, I'd not have thought that ANYONE could intentionally create a media blackout. Indeed, I still don't think it's possible, but (of course) I may be wrong.

Re: Abandoning the Combine, By Malcolm Gladwell

Carl M — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 11:42:57 -0000

For what it's worth, here's my opinion about admissions standards (you can think of this as a response to Gladwell's bit on Law School admission if you like).

I think that there is a certain minimum level of readiness below which students will struggle as undergraduates (or in any sort of graduate school). Beyond that, I don't think that there is as much difference between those who barely exceed that minimum level (whatever that is) and those who greatly exceed it. It is true that there is some degree to which tests like the SAT or LSAT measure intelligence, and it is true that there is a degree to which those tests measure (past) motivation to learn, but they also measure (indirectly but strongly) things like socioeconomic background and the quality of the schools (and teachers) that the students have encountered.

A serious problem in the US is that whites tend to be wealthier and have better teachers in their K-12 schools. How can we address this problem WITHOUT using race as a condition for admission? While not a complete solution, I have a suggestion that would help address the issue.

Step 1 (the hard step): Determine the minimum level of readiness for a university education and a way to measure it. (This is the hard part.) (Really.) (Note that this level will likely be different at different schools with differing expectations.)

Step 2 (the easy step): Place all students who apply to the school and meet the minimum requirements into a lottery and select the subset who will be accepted randomly. This will NOT result in accepting only the cream (as measured by the standards being used) of those who applied, but (if step 1 was done correctly) should not negatively impact the education (and careers) of any who are accepted. It SHOULD result in granting wider access to education to a wider cross-section of society (but - again if step 1 is done correctly - all who are accepted will be READY for a university education).

My guess is that many (most) of those reading my two-step plan will suggest that this doesn't address AT ALL the concerns raised by Gladwell in his talk. After all, he pointed out that the study at the University of Michigan showed that those admitted to the Law School with higher standards did no better in the legal profession than those admitted under lower standards. The thing to note is that those admitted with lower standards were not admitted without standards! The school essentially said "these lower standards will not bring us the best prepared students, but they're still rigorous enough standards to allow for admission of students who will succeed in our program." The MYTH is that those coming in with the most readiness to succeed will have the most successful careers when they leave. The FACT is that all of the students who are accepted have access to the SAME education. If it is the education in LAW SCHOOL that prepares people to be lawyers, we should expect that all of these students have (at least roughly) equal likelihood of success in their careers.

Disclaimer for the next bit (well for the above too I suppose): I am a university mathematics professor.

I disagree a little bit with what Gladwell implied in his first bit about teachers. I think that there is a minimum level of competence in the subject area that we should require of teachers (he seemed to imply that this wasn't AT ALL important .. though I doubt he'd really go that far). But, beyond that, he's absolutely right. It is not easy to know who will be a good teacher. Certainly knowledge and competence in the subject area is a MINIMUM requirement, but it doesn't capture whether the person will be able to communicate that knowledge to the students. I agree too that by overly narrowing those that we admit into the teaching profession, we will eliminate some of those with the greatest potential to be good teachers. (We also eliminate some of those with the greatest potential to be good teachers by the amount of pay we give teachers, but that's an entirely different topic.)

Re: Clarification on How PC is Ruining Our Country

Carl M — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 19:23:20 -0000

Political Correctness once meant (and still means to many - myself included) that language (and "humor") that is racist (or sexist or ageist or ...) is no longer tolerated in polite company. The phenomenon you are talking about (though it certainly had its roots in Political Correctness) is something else entirely -- and is to Political Correctness what steroids are to Flintstones vitamins.

Re: Clarification on How PC is Ruining Our Country

Carl M — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:12:03 -0000

Well, the problem (from my point of view) is that the term PC has come to mean the sort of extremism that you are talking about. I see this as a problem, because typically when a pendulum swings too far in one direction it then swings too far in the opposite direction.

Re: How Many of You Know That The Drop in Crime in the 90’s Happened Because of Roe vs. Wade?

Carl M — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 07:18:17 -0000

Another factor that has been hypothesized as an explanation of the decrease in certain types of crimes in the 1990's is the fact that the drop came the right number of years after lead had been removed from gasoline to attribute the drop to this. (Lead is harmful to the growing brains of children.)

Re: Clarification on How PC is Ruining Our Country

Carl M — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 18:56:14 -0000

JoseMonkey makes precisely the right point. It IS racist to claim that "those people" do these things when the words "those people" stand in for the word "blacks" (or worse). But, the REAL problem is that there are (far too many) people who believe that minorities are the cause of all (or even the majority of) the world's woes. If that is what they think, they're not likely to come up with a solution that addresses the real problems.

I agree with Jose too that it is a class thing and not a racial thing -- look at the Katrina aftermath. That was pretty clearly about class - and an almost complete lack of understanding by government officials of what poverty means.

Re: Clarification on How PC is Ruining Our Country

Carl M — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 10:23:20 -0000

Agreed .. for example, when a culture appears to value the "wrong things," we need to point this out -- LOUDLY. Here's the sticking point -- not everyone agrees on what the "wrong things" are, and - to be fair - MOST cultural preferences/differences are neither right not wrong.

Indeed, I suspect that the history of the extreme version of PC began as a reaction to people seeing "different" things in other cultures and proclaiming them to be "wrong" things simply because they are different. THAT is racism (or culturalism or whatever). BUT, (and I think this is your point, Daniel) this doesn't mean that we can't judge ANYTHING about a culture. If a culture has self-destructive characteristics (not placing appropriate value on things like education or hard work, turning a blind eye to crime, etc.), then I see no harm in pointing this out.

Of course, there's a fine line here too, and it's important to understand that these are PIECES of a culture and do not imply that an entire culture should be thrown out .. or that the other pieces of that culture are somehow inferior .. or (importantly) that the people in the culture are inferior.

Have I ever mentioned that I see education as the KEY?

By the way, you probably should have said "eastern Kentucky" rather than "East Kentucky" since you're making it look (to foreigners anyway) that East Kentucky has the same status (state status that is) as West Virginia.

Re: Loopt on the iPhone

Carl M — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 18:48:24 -0000

I predict that Apple's servers will have trouble keeping up with demand when the iPhone software first becomes available.

Re: TomTom on iPhone!

Carl M — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 20:00:04 -0000

I've got GPS in my Prius and seriously doubt that the iPhone stuff (regardless of how slick it is) would be preferable. There's something to be said for ZERO start-up time (no getting the phone from my pocket, putting it in a cradle, etc.). The iPhone stuff will be GREAT for pedestrian stuff and specialty uses.

Also, from what I can tell from their site, TomTom stuff is already available for a pretty wide range of phones. I'm sure that the iPhone implementation will be the slickest, but it's not the only one.

Re: Grammar Rage

Carl M — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:01:02 -0000

My own response was to cancel my subscription to the local (small town) newspaper several years back as soon as the long run of Calvin and Hobbes ended. I could no longer take the sheer volume of errors in spelling and grammar.

I agree with Jason that we all make mistakes, but he SEEMS to imply that this means that we shouldn't bother to strive for correct usage. I'm pretty sure that he isn't really saying this. I suspect that he's saying that usage evolves and we shouldn't be too hung up on decades-old rules and should be more concerned with whether communication is being impacted.

I would like to think that educated people can use "its" and "it's" properly, but it's the misuse of "your" and "you're" that I find particularly cringe inducing. Then too, the misuse of "to", "too", and "two" is far too frequent to calmly ignore (pardon my split infinitive - something that has become more acceptable since the dawn of Star Trek) without hesitating a moment or two. What can one say about the grammatically challenged but that they're likely to place their there where they meant to put their their -- and to be honest -- it does drive me crazy. (There there, Carl, calm down.)

Perhaps the solution is to point them to a link like this one:
http://englishplus.com/grammar/mistcont.htm</p>

Re: Half of the Black Population in NYC Has Genital Herpes?

Carl M — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:16:34 -0000

Those numbers don't really say too much by themselves. Some questions the answers to which might be useful:

(1) How is the disease spread? Do some people have a higher predisposition to contracting the disease if they contact it? Does condom use prevent its spread?

(2) As for the breakdowns by gender and race: Do blacks and whites have the same number of sexual partners? Do men and women? (I take it that you're assuming that the answer is no, but the herpes numbers do not imply that.)

(3) Do blacks and whites have the same number of inter-racial partners? Does that question even have any meaning? What definition of "black" and "white" is being used in the study?

...

This is a good example of the sort of thing that our friends at "Improbable Research" try to point out in their study guides. See for example:

http://improbable.com/2008/06/12/improbable-research-teachers’-guide/

All that said .. I agree with your implied premise that it would be nice if the numbers weren't so high.

Re: Grammar Rage

Carl M — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 13:42:09 -0000

Jason: You'd understand a little better if you had ever READ things like the Regents' (cough cough) Exams. I've never been a grader for those exams, but I've heard horror stories from those that have and I've read plenty of atrocious writing in my own (math) classes.

You claim that you passed the exam BY breaking rules. This may or may not be true. The threshold for passing is pretty low. You may have passed in spite of the rules you broke. In any case, if you were trying to creatively break some rules for aesthetic reasons, the point is that you KNEW that you were breaking the rules, and you (no doubt) did it in such a way that you did not harm communication.

You ask "what rules are acceptable to not know?" I'd say that the goal should be to know ALL the rules that apply to any writing that you will use. If you're engaged in formal writing of some sort, then you should stick to what you know is correct - and if you want to explore something new and aren't sure of the rules, you should look them up. I'm much more forgiving in informal writing (which should NOT include things like newspaper columns [except where an informal style is expected] or corporate memos). The attitude that you seem to imply (which again, I don't think is really what you mean) - that because there are SOME rules that are so obscure that one can't be expected to know them, then it follows that NO rules are important to know - too frequently leads to writing that is unintelligible. Seriously, some of the writing I've seen makes worrying about the specific examples that we've all brought up seem silly.

That said, y'all (spelled correctly) is a perfectly good plural version of you. And, since we don't use "thou" as the singular any more, a plural version of the word can be useful. I grew up just outside of Chicago and "you guys" (or even "you all") is the plural there. I must admit though that I've never come to like y'all's ... as in: How do you get to y'all's house? I'm not even sure how that should be spelled: y'all's ... y'alls ??

Daniel: Can you ever predict which of your posts will generate the most replies?

Re: Grammar Rage

Carl M — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 17:03:06 -0000

"I believe breaking the rules got me a higher-than-passing score."

Perhaps, but it may be that your score would have been exactly the same had you followed the rules that you knowingly broke.

"This, from the math professor, of course. ;)"

:) At least I only said that it should be the GOAL.

"I’m all for writing better, though, and I think it’s probably the single most important skill a person can develop."

I agree (and I'm a MATH professor). :)

Re: Half of the Black Population in NYC Has Genital Herpes?

Carl M — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 07:00:17 -0000

@ Maxo:

Fair enough, but I'd think that you'd go on to say:

I think in cases like this, you need a culture change that is sparked from within the culture. Prominent and respected women in the community need to speak out about the issue in question and inspire their own people to willingly change their behavior.

I think in cases like this, you need a culture change that is sparked from within the culture. Prominent and respected men in the community need to speak out about the issue in question and inspire their own people to willingly change their behavior.

I think in cases like this, you need a culture change that is sparked from within the culture. Prominent and respected whites in the community need to speak out about the issue in question and inspire their own people to willingly change their behavior.

--- Where do we draw the line? Which numbers are acceptable?

... but more to the point ... do the different numbers imply correspondingly different behavior? How do we know?

Re: Grammar Rage

Carl M — Tue, 17 Jun 2008 15:37:37 -0000

"Words that succeed in convoying an idea have satisfied their sole purpose, lack of apostrophes not withstanding."

Mistakes can help the writer convey even MORE than the original idea. They can indicate that the writer is not fluent or can indicate that the writer is ignorant of spelling or rules of grammar. Additionally, they can make communication less efficient as the reader is forced to read beyond what is written in an attempt to decipher what was intended.

I don't claim that we all should fret constantly about perfecting our writing, but I DO claim that good writing should be a goal (and ought to be the STANDARD).

Re: The Logical Solution to the Civil Union vs. Marriage Debate

Carl M — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 13:49:27 -0000

Daniel: No kidding.

Liam: If civil unions are to be the governmental version of marriage, then it needs to be as serious a contractual obligation as marriage is now. (Lawyers will still be needed.) Otherwise, we'd have people forming civil unions simply to fraudulently take advantage of benefits like insurance, etc.

Re: A Look at Obama’s View on Gun Control

Carl M — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 10:42:24 -0000

Children use guns all the time. It's not uncommon to see the "his first time hunting" story on the "news" during hunting season.

In any case, you claim that it's illegal for children to have guns. This may be true in some states. Maybe it's true in all states. I don't know. Still, children have more or less the same right to free speech that you and I have, so perhaps constitutional rights extend to children. If so, and if gun ownership is a constitutional right, then explicitly expressing a belief that children shouldn't have guns is not such an illogical thing.

Re: Delicious Library

Carl M — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 21:29:45 -0000

Cool.

Re: Holy Jesus God

Carl M — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:51:38 -0000

Oh, I don't know. If a DVD player gets a little dusty on top because you haven't dusted in a while, it's no big deal, but if THAT room went too long without dusting, it would lose some of its appeal. I'll stick to my (slightly dusty) DVD player.

Re: The Creepy TMJ Look

Carl M — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 06:58:31 -0000

From the article: "It'll be a long time before we fight a war over used veggie oil," says Claiborne with a sly smile.

It's not clear what he's suggesting. Does he mean that everyone should use used veggie oil instead of gasoline? Does he really think that there is enough? Does he really think that switching to veggie oil is better for the world? Does he think that compounding world-wide food shortages would not contribute to war? Is war over food somehow better than war over oil (if that's what he thinks the current scuffle is about)?

Does he really think that there are easy answers and that his group are the ones chosen to come across those answers and share them with the world? The answers are not easy and if we ever make it through to global prosperity (defined in any way you like), it will be because we finally decided to (or had to) make some tough choices.

Re: The Creepy TMJ Look

Carl M — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 07:04:36 -0000

From the article: "It [the philosophy of this group] emphasizes caring for the poor and the downtrodden."

This is a noble position. It is likely the reporter's fault, but placing the quote about wars over veggie oil at the start of the article takes away from the impact of this position (of caring for the poor).

Groups like this could learn something from the main parties. Find a message that will resonate and STAY ON MESSAGE. Don't let your own personal tangential views become a distraction.

Re: My Respect for Christopher Hitchens Just Went Up Quite a Bit

Carl M — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 16:54:33 -0000

I agree with ncloud. It should be CLEAR that waterboarding is torture.

I'd be interested in seeing a debate between Hitchens and someone who has gone through the procedure and asserts that it is NOT torture. Hitchens is a masterful debater, but if the other person holds to their claim that the procedure is NOT torture, then the only conclusion that Hitchens can come to (assuming that he holds to his position that it is torture - and grants that the other person is not lying) is that a procedure that a reasonable person (though perhaps not all reasonable people) would perceive as torture IS torture.

Furthermore, as ncloud correctly points out, the procedure that Hitchens (and other reporters and military personnel) underwent falls short of duplicating the conditions under which "enemies" undergo waterboarding.

Re: My Respect for Christopher Hitchens Just Went Up Quite a Bit

Carl M — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 17:04:50 -0000

The incredible thing is that the video does not LOOK much like torture. It looks like a VERY weak version of what we've seen portrayed as waterboarding in the media, and even THIS version of waterboarding was apparently extraordinarily stressful. The video is at the following link:

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/video/2008/hitchens_video200808

Re: My Understanding of Our Economy

Carl M — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:28:22 -0000

Disclaimer: I haven't yet read the piece you link to, so I'm responding only to the bit you quoted from it.

That's not a bad analogy, but this isn't to say that recessions are necessary. The goal should be to avoid BOTH the overenthusiastic boom and the recession. Indeed, the analogy isn't perfect. When an addict suffers withdrawal symptoms, he or she is suffering for his or her own addiction. When the economy suffers a recession, MANY people suffer .. including those who did not partake in the boom. This is why it is so important to try to steer the economy clear of recessions (whenever possible) and (thus) to try to avoid the overenthusiastic growth spurts that can lead to recessions.

Re: Tired of Mincing Words

Carl M — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 19:38:36 -0000

Marisol's last line is right on target.

Re: How I Grew Up Seeing the United States

Carl M — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 17:50:29 -0000

Jonathan is right. It's a pretty well-known fact among those who study this stuff that 74 percent of statistics found on the internet are simply made up.

Re: Lifecasting Piece Refresh

Carl M — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 18:38:57 -0000

"the next network upgrade after 3G is going to be scary fast (try between 100-300Mb)"

Is that a unit of speed?

-- I'll take a look and will offer editing suggestions when I have time.

Re: Some Clarification on How I View Most Believers

Carl M — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 08:56:53 -0000

Well said ... but ...

"I am obsessed with two things"

Only two? Really? :)

Re: I.Q.-Enhancement and Napping as Methods of Improving Business Efficiency

Carl M — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:03:42 -0000

You're not loopy, but you are making an assumption that is probably unwarranted. It isn't clear what scores on an IQ test measure. While it's almost certainly true that IQ scores are positively correlated with general intelligence (whatever THAT is), it's not at all clear that learning a technique that raises scores on an IQ test will lead to better problem solving abilities in real world situations.

Suppose that A is positively correlated with B and B is positively correlated with C. You're suggesting that increasing A (perhaps artificially) will increase C. It just doesn't necessarily follow.

(In case it isn't clear: A = IQ score, B = General Intelligence, C = real world problem solving skills.)

This isn't to say that memory techniques or speed reading techniques or ... will NOT help with real-world skills. It just isn't something that MUST be true even accepting all of your premises.

Re: It Would Be Worse if I Did Believe

Carl M — Wed, 09 Jul 2008 10:56:04 -0000

From the article: "Suppose you were an omnipotent god and there were no other gods. What would you do? Perform a continual sequence of verifiable miracles; after all, this doesn't require any effort, and keeps people from delusion."

Daniel, we've discussed this "logic." Even without turning to the whole faith argument, I find this rather weak. I can't imagine an omnipotent God feeling like he needed to prove himself to anyone. Suppose I created a universe in a laboratory (who knows .. this might be possible someday) or that I created a vast virtual world populated with sentient "beings" (again .. who knows what may be possible someday). The last thing I'd want to do is prove my vast abilities to the beings. Of course I might want to communicate with some of them at some point and might even tell them about how I created their universe (and I might decide that it was a bad idea afterwards if they took things out of context or failed to understand what I was trying to say).

Some of his other points are equally easy to poke holes in (for example the use of the phrase "our God" does not imply the existence of other Gods as he implies it does -- not to mention that the English translation of the Bible likely contains quite a few mis-translations -- as all other versions also likely do).

Still, I respect his conclusion. IF the Christian God is a torturer, then it makes no sense to worship Him. I've shared this with Daniel, but will share it with the rest of the readers here. Some Biblical literalists were trying to save some of us in the cafeteria when I was an undergrad about 25 years ago. They talked about the tortures of hell that awaited us if we didn't choose to believe. After hearing this for long enough, I said, if your God would condemn me to eternal torture simply for not believing in the literal truth of every word in the Bible, then I want no part of Him. The effect was incredible, all three of them got the same STUNNED expression on their face .. and all pushed their chairs away from the cafeteria table (as if I was about to be struck by lightning). Anyway, they moved on. Interestingly, one of my devout Christian friends who was at the table through all of this explained that her vision of Hell was that all truth would be revealed to us in the afterlife and that any torture would be our remorse at not having believed when we were shown the Truth. (It seems to me that the non-believers might be separated from God too ... I don't recall whether this meant a lack of access or what.) In any case, THIS concept of Hell makes perfect sense to me (and I think it's consistent with the Bible -- keep in mind that much of the New Testament -- particularly Jesus's teachings -- consists of parables [NOT MEANT TO BE TAKEN LITERALLY] intended to help humans understand the unknowable).

So, don't believe in a God who tortures. I'm all for that. Just understand that many Christians also believe that God does not torture.

Re: Initial iPhone 3G and Software 2.0 Experiences and Impressions

Carl M — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:10:20 -0000

I've had 2.0 installed on my old iPhone since Thursday. I had no problems following the instructions posted on various tech blogs on how to download the file from Apple and get it installed. I've bought a few apps (and got several free apps) and have had no problems at all.

I'm disappointed that the Map STILL doesn't have a key that indicates distance scale. In my opinion, there is no excuse for that. Maps of an area you don't know NEED this scale information to be fully useful.

I didn't even notice the "querty" typo, but Jason is right ... one ought to be able to type qwerty blindfolded (unless you're typing it on a non-qwerty keyboard).

Re: Initial iPhone 3G and Software 2.0 Experiences and Impressions

Carl M — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 09:14:07 -0000

I meant to ask ... I assume that you kept your number from your old iPhone. So, what is the status of the old phone now? Does it retain any functionality? Can you upgrade the software to 2.0 and use the non-phone capabilities?

Re: Some Clarification on How I View Most Believers

Carl M — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:40:29 -0000

I came upon this video after watching one suggested by the TED blog. Anyway, the person who created and posted the video is a Christian of the sort you (and I) dislike. But, take a look at who he is criticizing and you'll understand why I claim that MOST Christians are NOT the sort that you assume.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axxlXy6bLH0&feature=related

Re: I.Q.-Enhancement and Napping as Methods of Improving Business Efficiency

Carl M — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 11:46:37 -0000

Sorry I didn't get back to this sooner. YES, there are MANY things that correlate to IQ. I don't dispute that. But it is absurdly EASY to increase scores on an IQ test. For example, you could work through a book of puzzles of the sort that might appear on an IQ test. My claim is simply that doing so would increase your IQ score, but would not necessarily increase the other things to which IQ is positively correlated.

Re: Waves, Particles, Double-slits, and the Effect of Observation [Video]

Carl M — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:54:44 -0000

I've seen that video before .. the overhead animation of the wave interference is good, but doesn't match with the interference pattern that they show on the back wall. Details like that drive me crazy. Still, it's an engaging video and educates .. so overall, it's great.

Re: Theory: Apple is “Pulling a Wii” With iPhone 3G Stock

Carl M — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 07:55:56 -0000

I'm not so sure. Remember, this was a world-wide launch.

Re: Theory: Apple is “Pulling a Wii” With iPhone 3G Stock

Carl M — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 10:59:01 -0000

My own guess is that once Apple had everything ready, they cranked up production and then got to the point that there were enough units to satisfy a good chunk of the demand (and be able to claim one million units sold the first weekend). Beyond that, there was no benefit to their waiting for additional stock to be ready and CERTAINLY no benefit to their cellular partners around the world (or the app makers).

Think of all the additional games Nintendo could have sold if they had more Wii units out there sooner. There's SERIOUS money in the games.

I just don't buy that these are anything more than wanting to get the product in the hands of excited customers as soon as possible and not waiting for the stockpile to build to fully satisfy the expected (or hoped for) demand.

Re: Pew Political Quiz

Carl M — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:04:23 -0000

THe only question I got wrong was on the DJIA (and a few days ago when it was under 11000 I'd have been right). I thought that the question was checking if people were aware of the recent drop in the market.

Quite easy questions. I'd expect that people who pay any real attention to the news would do quite well.

Re: Agriculture Ruined the World

Carl M — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 20:06:58 -0000

I don't get this at all. He explains many of the ways in which agriculture has improved life on Earth for mankind. Then he poses the ENTIRELY IRRELEVANT QUESTION: How do you show that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got better when they abandoned hunting and gathering for farming?

That's like asking "How do you show that the lives of (let's say) British soldiers during World War II got better when they fought the Germans?" Of course, they didn't. They suffered terribly, but that's not the point. It's the outcome that measures the success. And, most would argue that they did not suffer (and die) in vain, but to make the world a better place (or at least to preserve the values of Britain).

Similarly, I don't think that anyone would claim that the lives of people 10,000 years ago got immediately better during the transition to a predominantly agricultural society. He gives evidence to show that their lives did not immediately improve, but I don't see that this is really the point. Certainly I find it rather absurd to call it Humanity's worst mistake.

Re: Politics: What’s Wrong With This Analogy?

Carl M — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 08:31:49 -0000

What's wrong with this analogy? It's too simplistic.

For starters, houses don't cost $5. Before someone jumps up to shout that this is not the point of the story, let me point out that many people work full time at jobs that pay wages so low that they can't afford to buy a house. The main problem is that even with payments spread over many years, the compounding of interest makes it impossible to afford simple decent housing.

An organization called Habitat for Humanity (which some of you may have heard of) addresses this problem by selling houses to those who qualify (that's right, they don't give houses to poor people as some believe .. the people qualifying for Habitat homes must work and be able to pay for the house) at cost with zero interest loans. The owners are required to put in 500 hours of sweat equity into the house (that is, they are required to work on the construction of their house .. of someone else's house .. or if they are unable to do the construction work, they are given other work to do that furthers the goals of Habitat for Humanity -- I'm not sure of the details of this other work, but you can probably find those details at their web page). By approaching the problem in this way, Habitat makes housing available to those who would otherwise be unable to afford it.

Now, my question to you: Is this a Democratic solution or is this a Republican solution?

My follow-up question is this: Isn't it time that we just start looking for solutions rather than looking for Democratic or Republican solutions?

Re: Another Political Analogy

Carl M — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 11:55:04 -0000

I haVe to agree with Maxo's comment to the previous post:

"The above story is only good at trying to paint over simplistic pictures of complicated issues."

That comment hold equally true for the current story. AND (I hate to say) for your response.

Allow me to quote from your post above:

"No, the real blame lies with the society that allows the system to exist in the first place. The problem is not having the political nuts to discourage/disallow lifestyles that destroy children. Until that happens we’ll keep having these discussions."

I think that this is correct.

"The sad fact is that poor, uneducated people will continue to destroy the lives of their children, and foolish neocons will keep thinking that those children have the same tools to succeed that other children have who come from good homes. Both of these things hurt our society greatly."

I think that both parts of this are overstated. Though you didn't say "all," I think it needs pointing out that it is neither true that ALL poor uneducated people will destroy the lives of their children nor that ALL neocons (though perhaps all of the "foolish" ones if "foolish" is defined appropriately) really believe that poor children have the same tools to succeed as wealthier children -- or (perhaps more to the point) children with parents who fully understand the value of education.

"In short, conservatives want damaged children to produce at the same rate as well-raised children — which is impossible. And the liberals fight to ensure that nobody talks down to the lifestyles of the poor and uneducated. They insist that the way they live is nobody’s business. So the problem perpetuates."

The first sentence here is more or less a restatement of the previous paragraph (which I have already commented on). The other two sentences are an overstatement (but are precisely the stereotype that those neocons would love everyone to believe about those on the left). It is simply NOT true that liberals insist that the way people live is nobody's business. There's a difference between hoping that everyone is treated respectfully and not blamed for things that are not their fault and asserting that there is no right or wrong. Liberals believe very strongly in education and in helping give those who start life at a disadvantage some assistance to help them make a success of themselves (and a liberal's definition of success is not so different from that of a conservative). Conservatives often talk about these issues as if all liberals do is steal money from the wealthy and give it to the poor. I would argue that the liberal's vision of government's use of money is to use the tax revenue (and to be sure a greater percentage of the income of the wealthy is collected in taxes) in the best interests of the country. I'm sure that conservatives have the same ideal. One difference is that liberals are more likely to want to help create a larger number of contributing members of society -- to help those who are disadvantaged (by virtue or birth or poor education in their region or ...) overcome their disadvantages and become more productive members of society.

Re: Another Political Analogy

Carl M — Sun, 27 Jul 2008 17:29:20 -0000

Daniel,

I'm OK with most of your post (granting that your statements are not about ALL liberals or ALL conservatives - and of course you didn't MEAN all), but stereotyping is rarely constructive. It tends to make people get defensive and this tends to lessen the value of the interaction. On the other hand, I agree almost entirely with your last reply.

I guess I (defensively perhaps) just want to again point out that I do not believe the far right's stereotype of liberals as a group who "fight to ensure that nobody talks down to the lifestyles of the poor and uneducated. They insist that the way they live is nobody’s business." The fact is that liberals do not want people blamed for ALL of the circumstances in which they find themselves, but (most .. not just some, but MOST) liberals do NOT excuse people for not trying to take advantage of the help they are given. And, I don't think I've EVER known of a liberal who insisted that the fact that the way people live (those living lives of crime for example) is nobody's business. It is true that (like libertarians) liberals tend to believe that unless people are hurting other individuals, or society, or even just themselves then the way they live their lives is nobody's business. For example, a liberal might claim that it's nobody's business if someone is gay. That doesn't mean that they would also claim that it's nobody's business if someone is committing crimes. THIS is one of the big lies about liberals. Rush (and his ilk) are likely to assert that liberals don't believe that the way people live is anyone's business. It's simply not true, and THIS (in a nutshell) is my issue with the original post.

Re: Olympic Cynicism

Carl M — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:26:00 -0000

Nah, they'll charge him of wearing a swim suit that's too high tech. That's why he'll get a million dollars from Speedo if he wins 8 at this Olympics. (I'm not complaining .. most sports have improvements in technology that improve play .. I'm assuming that you're not using a 1950's style paddle when you play table tennis.)

Re: Charlie the Unicorn

Carl M — Wed, 13 Aug 2008 08:44:41 -0000

And you're worried about there not being enough hours in the day to do everything you need to do?

Re: Why McCain Will Be the Next President

Carl M — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 08:29:43 -0000

Well, first of all it would be nice to know how the question was phrased. As written in the article ("asked the same whites if MOST of the people they knew would vote for a black candidate" - emphasis mine), and if the respondents actually meant MOST when they answered the question, it could mean anything from HUGE numbers of whites who wouldn't vote for a black ("most" could mean anywhere from 50.01% to 100% .. and "NOT most" could mean anywhere from 0% to 49.99%). Of course questions like this aren't designed to probe real numbers (because they CAN'T), they're designed to look for the effect you're talking about. A typical example is that polls show that people think poorly of those in Congress EXCEPT those that represent them.

Anyway, with the understanding that this poll tell us little about any real underlying numbers, let's continue. I think it's clear that neither party has a lock on racism (there are racists in every party), so we can't assume that the people who admit (or are too conflicted to admit) that they wouldn't vote for a black candidate are Democrats. Many of them are showing up in the polls already as people who will not vote for Obama.

We can look at the evidence from the primary, but I maintain that this can't be extrapolated to the November election. There were differences between Clinton and Obama, but they were small compared to the differences between McCain and Obama. I may turn out to be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time), but I'm more optimistic. I don't know who will win, but I don't think that there will be a huge swing from what the polls tell us as we approach election day.

Re: Why McCain Will Be the Next President

Carl M — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 12:03:55 -0000

Bill, thanks for that link. It ought to put the issue to rest.

Re: This Guy’s Batshit Crazy

Carl M — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 06:53:10 -0000

I don't think that any of this is a secret from Scientologists.

Re: Why McCain Will Be the Next President

Carl M — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:33:39 -0000

Just a reality check ... the national vote totals are meaningless. We don't elect presidents by popular vote. A friend of mine (wanting to see if there was any meaningful change in the two months leading up to the election -- trying to prove for himself once and for all that the bombardment of campaign ads in these last two months are a waste of money and time) checked the state polls as of 10 days ago (2 months before the election). The site he used didn't have recent results for all 50 states, but he used older data in those cases (he was careful to specify in advance everything about his study). Anyway, at that time, Obama had a fairly comfortable lead in electoral votes (or what would be electoral votes if the election was held then and if the votes were true to the polls).

Long story short .. nationwide vote totals are meaningless.

Re: Why McCain Will Be the Next President

Carl M — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 18:35:10 -0000

(In fact, I'm puzzled why such stress is put on these nationwide polls .. it's not as though we don't have a recent example of a president who didn't win the popular vote race.)

Re: Searching For a New Font Color Palette

Carl M — Sat, 16 Aug 2008 16:43:21 -0000

Surprisingly fun to play with.

Re: A Charming Little Piece About the Bible

Carl M — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:35:02 -0000

Your statement "Just look around at the most religious parts of the world. The problem is one group’s opinion that they have the REAL inside track, and that the other group is wrong. It’s so utterly obvious, people." is not so different from the statement.

Just look at the US as compared to Europe. The problem is that Americans are allowed to own guns and this results in enormous numbers of people being killed and injured by guns. It's so utterly obvious, people.

I am certain that you have a list of refutations for that second argument. My point is that the LOGIC is the same as the statement of yours that I quoted.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that your sentiment is something like this: Mankind may be capable of some truly horrendous stuff, but the most horrific seems nearly always (or at least far too frequently) to stem from religious ideals or religion-based conflict.

This may well be true. (I'm certainly going to dispute it.) It's also true that enormous numbers of people are killed by guns in the US. Does this men that GUNS are bad? No. "Guns don't kill people, people do." Similarly, I don't believe that your blanket statements about religion (ie: your implication that religion is universally useless and bad) are valid.

Re: A Charming Little Piece About the Bible

Carl M — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:37:30 -0000

PS I'm not sure if it's irony or what .. but this post (currently) has a Google ad entitled "Jesus Loves You."

Re: The Best Retort for the “Atheists Are Arrogant” Argument

Carl M — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 08:01:24 -0000

This is indeed a great reply to those who indeed claim to know, with absolute certainly, what their God wants for all of humankind.

(But, I will continue to maintain that such people .. though they may be over represented among the well known religious figures are not as plentiful as you think .. nor do all who do claim such knowledge use the word arrogant to describe atheists.)

Still in the (limited?) arena of applicability, I would agree that this is a great response.

Re: The Best Retort for the “Atheists Are Arrogant” Argument

Carl M — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 07:31:34 -0000

@Dave ... :)

.. but I still don't see that great a number of people who both (1) believe that they know the mind of God and (2) assert that atheists are arrogant.

... Perhaps I could have kept it that simply stated the first time. :)

Re: What Makes Finnish Kids So Smart?

Carl M — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:19:17 -0000

Interesting article (I'm guessing my dad will send it to be in the mail as he often does with education related WSJ articles). A telling piece: "One explanation for the Finns' success is their love of reading." Too few American children read for fun.

Another: "Finland's high-tax government provides roughly equal per-pupil funding, unlike the disparities between Beverly Hills public schools, for example, and schools in poorer districts."

Another (particularly sad): "Finnish high-school senior Elina Lamponen saw the differences firsthand. She spent a year at Colon High School in Colon, Mich., where strict rules didn't translate into tougher lessons or dedicated students, Ms. Lamponen says. She would ask students whether they did their homework. They would reply: " 'Nah. So what'd you do last night?'" she recalls. History tests were often multiple choice. The rare essay question, she says, allowed very little space in which to write. In-class projects were largely "glue this to the poster for an hour," she says."

Re: The Republican Convention Has Reminded Me Why I Hate Them

Carl M — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:19:53 -0000

Good post .. but if I must nitpick (and .. you know me .. I must) :)

<ul>
<li>A general hypocrisy due to their religious convictions, which can be seen in things like Palin cutting funds for teenage mothers while having one in her family</li>
</ul>

That's not hypocrisy. That's standing firm to her principles. You and I don't agree with those principles, but if she chose a different set of principles BECAUSE her teenage daughter is pregnant .. THEN it would be hypocrisy.

(Nonetheless, there are PLENTY of examples of hypocrisy [not necessarily due to religion] that you can find .. both in her record and in McCain's.)

Re: “No Duh…”

Carl M — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:25:16 -0000

.. well .. the point is .. it should be a CHOICE and that women who choose to work (even ambitiously) should not be judged inferior by those who wish to be a "housewife" and those who choose to be housewives (by choice .. not after being bullied by an oppressive husband) should not be judged by those who wish to work.

To be realistic for a moment, many families that are two-income households have chosen to be so in order to maintain the standard of living they envision for themselves (and unfortunately - judging from the credit card debt in the US - many fail to reach their standard living even WITH two incomes).

Re: Log, by Blammo

Carl M — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:26:45 -0000

a classic

Re: The Republican Convention Has Reminded Me Why I Hate Them

Carl M — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:31:10 -0000

I assume that you've seen this clip from the Daily Show:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=184086&title=Sarah-Palin-Gender-Card

Re: Forget the Deer, This Kid’s Amazing!

Carl M — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 14:01:30 -0000

I guess the question is: What did this kid eat on October 28?

Re: Microsoft Humor

Carl M — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 20:45:27 -0000

Bizarre, but it certainly fits with the theme of commercials these days. Show something irrelevant to the decision that the public must make and see if they somehow ... um ... well, I just don't get it.

Re: Obama Being Exceedingly Clear About His Tax Plan

Carl M — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 10:33:50 -0000

The tax issue is only part of the story in this clip. A bigger issue in this election is the fact that Obama is talking about the issues (when he isn't forced to defend himself against absurd accusations) and McCain is NOT talking about issues (or is distorting Obama's record).

Re: Obama Being Exceedingly Clear About His Tax Plan

Carl M — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:38:50 -0000

Yep, a flat tax SOUNDS fair. What could be fairer than everyone paying a set percentage of their earnings? No deductions for ANYTHING. Everyone shares the burden equally.

Except that the burden would NOT be equal. There are people who make barely enough money to afford their rent and food. They don't even DREAM of home ownership or health insurance. They don't dream of getting their kids into college because the schools in their poor towns don't appropriately prepare their kids for college .. and they couldn't afford college even if they did. (Of course the kids may get scholarships for their first year, but unless they are able to make appropriate academic progress -- by no means a certainty when they have had poor schooling before college .. and have nobody at home who knows what is necessary to succeed in college.) So, they don't go to college .. or they drop out .. and they take low paying jobs, and the cycle continues. A flat tax would shift a large amount of the tax base from the wealthy (who CAN afford it) to the poor or middle class (who can LESS afford it).

While a flat tax is "fair" by one definition of the word, it is far from fair as far as spreading the BURDEN of taxes equally.

This isn't to say that we should tax upper brackets at 90% (which we don't). If taxes were too high, then there would be people who would not bother working harder to earn that next million since they'd only get to keep $100,000. Take a look around. I see no evidence that the current tax structure (or the Clinton tax structure) is keeping the wealthy from doing everything they can to make even MORE money.

It's got nothing to do with envy. It's about people who can afford to help the country pay for it's military and its borrowers doing so.

You ask: "What gives government the right to take money from certain people and give it to others?" The answer is that the people give that right to the government. There are MANY things that are best done in a centralized way. Those that pretty much everyone agrees with are: military and interstate infrastructure. In addition to those, there are some things that we really have no choice about now. Because the government borrows money, it must pay interest on that money. There are other things that we the people (through our elected representation in Washington) have given the government the right to spend money on. You can disagree that they are valid things for the federal government to spend money on, but you can't question the government's right to do so. Should we spend money on an FBI? a CIA? (I think that most people would say yes.) Should we spend money on education? (Most people would say yes, but this is less unanimous.) Individual taxpayers don't get to pick what the government spends money on. (People who objected to the Iraq war didn't get to opt out of paying for it.)

But the way you phrased the question indicates that you may be asking about the legitimacy of welfare. Of course, welfare is a small fraction of the federal budget, but it was debated by our representatives, and they decided that it was likely that we would be better off if we made an attempt to end the cycle of poverty. You can argue that this hasn't worked as well as they might have hoped. But, what gives them the right? We do.

Re: The Republicans Have Deliberately Chosen to Campaign on Emotion Rather Than Issues

Carl M — Sat, 13 Sep 2008 15:40:46 -0000

McCain Campaign Manager Rick Davis: "This election is not about issues. This election is about a composite view of what people take away from these candidates."

I find this to be a reprehensible statement coming from the manager of a presidential campaign.

Re: The Republicans Have Deliberately Chosen to Campaign on Emotion Rather Than Issues

Carl M — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:06:37 -0000

Mr. Miessler,

With all due respect, scientists have quite a good idea what matter is and are pretty adept at taking apart atoms without enormous atom smashers. What you may have heard is that they hope to find the (hypothetical) Higgs particle which is a part of current physical theory that explains WHY particles have mass. Scientists can understand how the the world works pretty well without knowing WHY the numbers are as they are. For example, they know how much mass a proton has (about 1.67262158 times ten to the negative 27th kilograms)(aka 1.67262158 yoctograms)(really), but they don't know WHY that number isn't 1.67381239 or even 2.5. This is the question that they hope to answer with the new particle accelerator in Europe. It isn't so much an atom smasher as a way to concentrate an enormous amount of energy in a very tiny place. Imagine two cars colliding head on at 15 mph. There's a lot of energy there at the point of collision. If they collide at 30 mph, there is twice the energy. The more energy each car has, the more energy is concentrated at the point of collision. Of course the "point" of collision is fairly large (compared to an atom say).

So scientists take protons (quite tiny - radius approximately .00000000000001 meters) and pour enormous amounts of energy into them (by accelerating them) and then run them into each other head on. They're not atom smashing, they're proton smashing. And, they're not doing it to see what's inside a proton, they're doing it to concentrate all that energy into a TINY amount of volume. What they will see is not what was inside the protons (physics doesn't work that way)(truth is far stranger than that). The energy changes into new particles including ones that are heavier than (the rest mass) of either proton. The (energy content of the) mass of these new particles can't exceed the energy of the collision (E=mc^2 and all that). Since this new collider is capable of greater energies than any previous colliders, scientists hope that they will see new particles that are predicted by current theory (particles that have never been detected but that current theories predict ought to be there -- though theories differ on what the masses ought to be).

As for life, I'm not sure which of Daniel's posts you're talking about, but it does seem pretty unlikely that there is life on the moon. On the other hand, there could very easily be life as we know it tucked away in a niche on Mars or elsewhere in the solar system. Of course when we say "life as we know it" we don't mean people. There are bacteria on Earth that would thrive in certain places in the solar system. Bacteria are (one form of) life as we know it.

Carl

Re: The Republicans Have Deliberately Chosen to Campaign on Emotion Rather Than Issues

Carl M — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 08:07:23 -0000

@TIMM

My answer is YES.

Re: The Republicans Have Deliberately Chosen to Campaign on Emotion Rather Than Issues

Carl M — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:03:15 -0000

@ TIMM

I'm not so sure. Obama supporters (defined as those who have already made a decision) are unlikely to be swayed by the Republican manipulation ads. McCain supporters are similarly unlikely to change their position. It's those in the middle who are being aimed at. But, that's really not the point. Even if one side was more likely than then the other to be swayed by emotional manipulation, I'd be angered by the fact that a campaign manager thought that a corollary was that this was an appropriate way to run a presidential campaign. If we are to have any hope of doing more than stumbling into the future, I think that we need some real debate on the issues (and an admission by the candidates that there are no easy answers to some of the more challenging issues out there [like the economy, like education, like terrorism ... it seems that only in the last of these issues do candidates admit that there are no easy answers]).

Given the fact that Fox News is the most emotionally manipulative major news source (in my opinion) and that it is directed at Republicans (in my opinion), it strikes me that this might be an indication that it is Republicans who are most capable of engaging in politics via emotional manipulation. (But, again, that isn't really the point in my view.)

Re: The Republicans Have Deliberately Chosen to Campaign on Emotion Rather Than Issues

Carl M — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:05:31 -0000

Correction ...

A few posts back I said "this is THE QUESTION .." and I should have said "this is ONE OF THE QUESTIONS .."

Re: The Republicans Have Deliberately Chosen to Campaign on Emotion Rather Than Issues

Carl M — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 17:39:51 -0000

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/14/campaign.wrap/index.html

Re: Obama Being Exceedingly Clear About His Tax Plan

Carl M — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 21:00:39 -0000

@John

Good advice for people who have retirement savings that they can invest as they please. But, many people (MANY people) either do not have any retirement savings or have only a retirement plan through work that they cannot control in any way (or at least not in sufficient detail to move retirement savings into the oil sector). That's not a viable solution for them.

The thing is that there is NOT an easy answer to the economic woes of the country. There's NOT an easy answer to the question "Which type of tax system is best for the country?" There's NOT a one-size-fits-all answer for how to invest wisely. It's just not that simple.

Re: Watch This and Tell Me Obama Isn’t Something Special

Carl M — Tue, 23 Sep 2008 21:36:33 -0000

One question of course is whether or not he can accomplish what he wishes to accomplish. Naysayers claim that he's all talk. I think that they miss the fact that he inspires people. He may well have the power to be convincing enough to get a large portion of these ideas enacted. This may well be a defining moment in our history. I think it's clear that if he is elected (as I hope he will be), then he'll not get a free pass to a second term in office. But, I don't think that he will waste the opportunity. I think that he WILL accomplish great things -- not because he is the second coming .. but because he does inspire. A leader who can inspire is one who has the potential to quickly bring about some needed changes.

If you don't agree with Obama on specific policy issues AND agree more strongly with McCain on those issues, then by all means vote for McCain.

It seems though that there are many people who agree with Obama's policy ideas (or at least are closer to Obama than McCain on policy) but who would rather cast a vote for McCain because he has more experience in Washington. This doesn't make sense to me. To those people, I'd ask two questions: (1) Do you think that the country is better off now than before Bush was elected? and (2) Do you honestly think that in four years the country would be better off after a McCain presidency than under an Obama presidency?

The voters who puzzle me the most are the Clinton supporters who would select McCain over Obama. I understand that they are upset that Clinton didn't win the nomination, but are they REALLY more aligned with McCain than Obama? REALLY? Were they Clinton supporters because of her policy positions? LIke I said .. I'm puzzled.

... all that said. Yes, I think that Obama is something special, but that wasn't his best speech (content was fine .. but he stumbled over the words in a couple places -- nitpicky to be sure).

Let's see how the debates go. If he stumbles over any sentences there, the press will jump all over it. He'll need to be crisp. (I've no fear that he'll be well prepared.)

Re: Watch This and Tell Me Obama Isn’t Something Special

Carl M — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:44:50 -0000

@shane

I believe that giving up our ability to tell other countries that they can't play the "preemptive" war card because of a perceived threat would require a level of threat that I can't even imagine. Bush called Iran, Iraq, and North Korea an axis of evil and then attacked Iraq in a preemptive way. Can anyone really blame Iran and North Korea for wondering if they're next? Can anyone blame them for perceiving a threat and attempting to shore up their military capabilities in preparation for the preemptive attack that logic would imply is coming? The "strategy" of declaring an axis of evil consisting of three countries and then attacking the weakest of those countries in a preemptive way ... I just can't think of ANY scenario in which that makes sense.

As for deregulation, I would agree that OVERregulation is a problem. But, so is under-regulation. It's like Goldilocks and the Three Bears. There's too much, there's too little, and there's just right. Finding the right level isn't trivial (it isn't zero).

Re: Thoughts on the First Debate

Carl M — Sat, 27 Sep 2008 20:29:03 -0000

I agree with what Jason wrote .. and I too noticed the strong similarity between what Obama said and your point recently that UNLESS we give negotiation an honest try, then we're not going to have the support of our allies .. and if we do and it doesn't work, then military would be a last resort and other countries would be more likely to support us.

On the Palin subject, even those on the far right are getting nervous. The link below is to an article on the National Review online (a Conservative publication -- in case you weren't already aware).

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDZiMDhjYTU1NmI5Y2MwZjg2MWNiMWMyYTUxZDkwNTE=

Re: Thoughts on the First Debate

Carl M — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 08:41:22 -0000

@Brooks

I thought that Obama was simply not letting McCain get away with the false accusations that he's been using in his campaign events and ads.

Re: More Solid Comedy from Palin

Carl M — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:24:54 -0000

IMHO, the commentary was unnecessary and self-destructive. The people who will decide the election are those in the middle and they're going to take these examples more seriously if they're not accompanied by what appears to be partisan-based accusations of stupidity. Just let the clips speak for themselves.

Re: More Solid Comedy from Palin

Carl M — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 07:27:08 -0000

To be clear, I meant the commentary that was part of the video (though I do think that you'd reach more people if you let facts speak for themselves when they need no explanation or pre-assertions).

Re: Sam Harris Pwns a Supernationalist

Carl M — Sat, 11 Oct 2008 18:31:09 -0000

I don't see the skeptic as winning this argument .. not least because the religious figure laughed along with the Elvis example.

Re: Obama Fields a Question About Small Business Taxes

Carl M — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 00:54:17 -0000

nice.

Re: This Woman is Everything Wrong With America

Carl M — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 06:18:06 -0000

I'm even more concerned that she'd disqualify someone based on his name.

Re: Personal Daemons and Wuffie

Carl M — Wed, 26 Nov 2008 08:43:47 -0000

On a similar vein...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10108609-71.html