Browse: Page 43

Convicting Anyone of Anything

By on November 26, 2008

A jury convicted Lori Drew of breaking MySpace’s terms of service, possibly sending her to prison for years, if the verdict stands up on appeal.

Why? Because she was involved in setting up a fake MySpace account, posing as a teenage boy, in order to mess with the emotions of a psychologically fragile teenage girl who had been nasty to her daughter. The teenage girl ended up committing suicide, and now people want to blame someone. And technically, Lori might have run afoul of federal computer fraud laws, even though those laws were supposedly never intended to address this situation.

The bad part about this case is that it only reinforces that federal prosecutors can convict almost anybody they want to, because we almost everybody has done something that is technically against federal criminal law. And most of us have also done at least one stupid thing online that might have pissed off someone else.

You see, the federal code is full of over-harsh laws. (Years in the federal pen for violating MySpace’s terms of service?! Get some perspective.) And this law wasn’t even applied correctly, because federal computer crime laws were intended (supposedly) to protect peoples’ credit card numbers and other sensitive information stored on computer. And rooting for a misapplication of an unfair law just to get even hurts us all, because it makes it more likely that the next victim who wants to get even will want to get even with you or me.

OK. Rant over. (For now.)

-TimK

Posted in , , | 4 Responses

Our Kids Can Handle a Lot More than We Give Them Credit For

By on November 24, 2008

The following was originally published at Dad-O-Matic.

When my 12-year-old daughter wanted to read my latest book, I discouraged her, because it addresses adult subjects, including organized rebellion against government (just the thought of which these days can label you a traitor), and it depicts sex and violence. Continue reading “Our Kids Can Handle a Lot More than We Give Them Credit For”

Posted in

No Such Thing as an Overnight Millionaire

By on November 21, 2008

Occasionally, I see ads for a “system” that promises that you can make a million dollars (or some other large figure) with no effort, no skill, no customer list, and no risk. In response, I say, “Oh yeah? Well, if it were really that easy, why isn’t the author of the system doing it, again and again and again, each time making another million dollars?”

Seth Godin has a better quip about these make-money-fast schemes: “If no skill or effort is required, then why doesn’t the promoter just hire a bunch of people at minimum wage and keep the profits?”

Clearly, it can’t be that easy, or else everyone on the planet would either be a millionaire or would work for a millionaire who uses such a system. The truth is that even a simple business requires know-how, determination, and a success mindset. That’s why being self-employed isn’t for everyone.

-TimK

Posted in , | 4 Responses

Proof That Programming Language Trivia Is Stupid

By on November 21, 2008

As reported in the New York Times:

When older people can no longer remember names at a cocktail party, they tend to think that their brainpower is declining. But a growing number of studies suggest that this assumption is often wrong.

Instead, the research finds, the aging brain is simply taking in more data and trying to sift through a clutter of information, often to its long-term benefit.

This makes sense.

The myth is that humans use only a fraction of their brains. In truth, however, fMRI’s and other tests observe neurons firing across the entire brain (when we use it). And when one area of the brain grows–in order to get better at one particular kind of thought process–it must steal neurons from the neighboring regions. Different parts of the brain are always competing with each other for space.

Now, I’ve been saying that I don’t memorize details of programming languages that I can look up in 30 seconds on the Internet. Yes, I can do PHP, Perl, Javascript, Java, CSS, and many others. But don’t give me any off-the-cuff language quizzes. They’re stupid. Like Sherlock Holmes, I have emptied my mind of insignificant facts, in order to make room for the important ones. I can help you design great software, but language trivia is for newbies.

It seems Sherlock and I were right.

-TimK

P.S. Actually, programming language trivia may not be stupid, because some old-time developers dedicate themselves to such things. But having wrapped themselves in the details, they tend to be weak on engineering concepts, especially new techniques to develop bigger software better and new practices to develop software faster and more reliably.

Posted in ,

Not “Global Warming” Anymore; It’s the Global Climate Crisis!

By on November 20, 2008

Holly Lisle posted about a link to an article on the recent global warming data blunder, and her take on it.

There are actually four separate questions to global warming: 1. Are world temperatures rising? 2. Are humans causing it? 3. Can we do anything to stop it? 4. Should we do anything to stop it?

First, you have to get past #1, which you can, because we have indeed measured a gradual increase in temperature over the past 100 years or so. This is not a steady rise, year after year. It is a long-term trend, like the stock market, 2 steps forward, 1 step back.

But even if one gets past #1, that doesn’t imply #2, which is where many advocates go awry, because science simply can’t tell us the answer. And #2 doesn’t imply #3. And #3 doesn’t imply #4. On this last, if we could do something to stop it, that doesn’t mean we ought to. So what if the waters rise? A Cato Institute paper, for example, pointed out that it would be cheaper to move all ocean-front houses 100 miles in-land than to try to reduce CO2 emissions enough to make a difference.

The “global climate crisis,” as I understand it, comes from the fact that some people fear that global warming will bring upon a new ice age. (Plus, it has the word “crisis” in it, which tends to make ordinary voters act stupid, so that’s always a plus.) It may or may not be a crazy theory. What I do know is that it is pure speculation. Now, if you want to run around shouting about the world coming to an end, that would be one thing. But I choose to do something more constructive.

Anyhow, some evidence suggests that global temperature is largely out of our control, because humans only have a small (if any) effect on it. Most global temperature change is caused by natural causes such as the sun shining. So unless you have a grand plan to block out the sun in order to reduce global temperature, we should probably redirect our efforts toward adapting, rather than panicking.

-TimK

P.S. A more level-headed (less sexy) article on Scientific American gives a more circumspect view of the so-called data blunder.

Posted in ,

7 Warning Signs of Bogus Politics (and Science)

By on November 19, 2008

An article back from January 2003, but still being linked to from various blogs, and with good reason. Robert Park presents 7 warning signs that a claim might be B.S. (instead of science).

Some of these signs revolve around how the scientist himself approaches the claim, such as whether he submits it to rigorous study and peer review or whether he issues press releases and runs paid advertisements. Obviously, just because a claim is mentioned in a press release doesn’t mean it’s bogus, but valid claims will usually be subjected to peer review, because most scientists want the badge of honor that comes after their discovery has been proven by their peers.

Other signs deal with the kind of evidence presented, the quality of the evidence, or whether the claim is consistent with already-understood science.

What struck me is that these signs also apply to political discourse. Briefly, you should suspect a political argument if: Continue reading “7 Warning Signs of Bogus Politics (and Science)”

Posted in

In a Truly Free Market, Small Businesses Would Rule

By on November 18, 2008

Another interesting post on the Cato Institute blog, this time by Timothy B. Lee, commenting on an essay by Roderick Long, which argues that corporate welfare, government-imposed barriers to entry, and the like favor big business, and businesses would be smaller in a truly free economy.

What caught my eye about Long’s article was his claim that in a genuinely free market, businesses would be significantly smaller than they are today. He points out that large, hierarchical businesses are subject to many of the same inefficiencies that plague government bureaucracies. The executives of the largest corporations cannot possibly have enough knowledge to make good decisions about the thousands of different projects various parts of their companies are undertaking, and so it’s inevitable that large companies will suffer from inefficiencies greater than those that afflict smaller firms.

For example… the Internet’s success depends on the fact that it isn’t owned or managed by any single entity. Back in the 1990s, when the Internet was competing with proprietary online services like AOL and Compuserve, the Internet’s lack of centralized control turned out to be its most important strength. The hierarchical decision-making processes of the AOL and Compuserve companies simply couldn’t keep up with the spontaneous order of millions of Internet users acting without central direction.

Lee goes on to partly agree and partly disagree. On the one hand, you have Microsoft, who started as a small, entrepreneurial, innovatively disruptive company and has grown up into a struggling, bumbling behemoth. (My words, not his.) On the other hand, you have Google: “The reason Google is so profitable, in a nutshell, is network effects. Google sits at the center of a vast network of users, website operators, and advertisers who are locked in a virtuous circle.”

Fascinating topic, and one that I haven’t yet thought much about in those terms.

-TimK

Posted in , , ,

I Am So in the Wrong Line of Work!

By on November 18, 2008

In the category of “you learn something new every day” is this post by Daniel Ikenson, at the Cato institute blog, about the General Motors Jobs Bank.

Rather than allow GM to layoff workers when conditions warranted, the UAW had GM assign workers to the Jobs Bank, where they were paid almost full wages and benefits NOT to work. The Jobs Bank was pitched nominally as a retraining program, where workers would acquire the skills and train themselves in the technologies and techniques of the future… Alas, the Jobs Bank became little more than a casino and lounge, where workers would report for a full day of leisure, reading newspapers, playing cards, and generally not adding value to GM’s vehicles. (Sounds a bit like my job description, actually.)

Okay. Truthfully, it sounds a little like my job description, too. But at least we do useful work, providing actual value to others. Just because we enjoy our jobs doesn’t mean it’s a boondoggle. And sometimes I do need to get things done that I don’t feel like doing. My job requires discipline.

Actually, I take that back. I’m not in the wrong line of work. But sometimes I do wish someone would pay me NOT to work, so that I can have a little more fun and less discipline.

-TimK

Posted in

Feeling Sorry for the “Impeach Barack Obama” Group Creator

By on November 17, 2008

I really felt for Ellen Finnigan, because of her recent article on the “Impeach Barack Obama” Facebook group that she created. I mean profanity-laced hate-email is one thing, but when the jerk sunk to calling her a “Republican,” them’s fightin’ words. I honestly felt bad for her, felt offended on her behalf.

-TimK

P.S. Ellen is also a member of the “Impeach George W. Bush” group. And she created the “Impeach John McCain” group, just in case he were to have won the presidency.

Posted in , | 1 Response

How to “Prove” That Poetry is Valuable

By on November 17, 2008

Doug Lasken bemoans a government-school program that teaches kids about exploring sexual fantasies through virtual worlds, in place of teaching them about poetry and literature.

I think the literacy coaches and cadres and their burgeoning publishing empire should be scrapped and the money saved. But not all the teachers present at the 11th grade curriculum rollout agreed. One man stood up and called the program “powerful,” and any number of other sycophants, excited over the prospect of promotion, fawned all over the presenters. How do I overcome this? How, for starters, do I prove that poetry is valuable, that we should spend money teaching it?

You know what, I can’t prove it.

How, when you think about it, can anyone prove anything?

That’s a good question: How to “prove” that poetry is valuable. Answer: It depends on what you mean by “prove.” Continue reading “How to “Prove” That Poetry is Valuable”

Posted in , ,

« PreviousNext »