I switched over from Windows XP to Linux (Ubuntu, Linux for people) several months ago. Occasionally I use other computers, those with Windows and Internet Explorer. It just struck me how paranoid I was as a Windows user.
When searching for something on Google, for example, I wouldn't go to sites that had something suspicious about them. I avoided most lyrics sites, and other pages with lots of cookies, and so on. And with good reason--after being bombarded with pop-ups and viruses, having to load Windows in safe mode to perform virus scans, and freaking out about keyloggers and that my personal files were compromised, I learned my lesson: with Internet Explorer, only go to sites you heard of. Don't download email attachments, not even from people you know.
Press alt f4 with those pop-up ads, don't close them with your mouse, or else they'll install something on your computer. Update your virus scanner (which doesn't work anyway. No antivirus software ever prevented viruses for me), reboot. Update your spyware scanner, reboot. Run a couple of firewalls. And so on. Without all those scanners and firewalls, your Windows computer is in serious peril, as that little red shield thingy on your taskbar will tell you. With all those scanners and firewalls, your computer is still in danger, but it runs real slow. Most of your CPU and RAM is used to do background scanning. Then the stupid thing crashes, or your firewall malfunctions and you have no internet access. So you have to reboot yet again.
With Ubuntu, however, I'm starting to forget all these things. I'm starting not to fear viruses. I just surf, without constantly looking over my shoulder. Software updates come daily. Having to reboot is rare. And Linux is safer, by design and because there are fewer Linux viruses. Here is a great article on the matter.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Subway Insecurity
Everyone who uses the New York City subway has no doubt heard the frequent announcements that large packages and other containers are subject to random search by the New York City Police Department. They have also seen the couple of police officers who occasionally stand at a table near the turnstiles, and randomly select people for bag checks.
If the purpose of the turnstile checkpoints is to prevent terrorism, the underlying idea might have a modicum of merit. Its implementation, however, is mind bogglingly stupid.
Suppose a terrorist carries his payload down the subway steps. Suppose there are cops at this particular entrance of the station, conducting random checks. It's hard for the terrorist not to see the cops. To prevent being searched, all the terrorist has to do to carry out his mission is to go back up the steps and either enter the same subway station at a different entrance, or walk to the next stop, which is usually a few blocks away. That's it. Some security system.
Police officers spend countless hours standing at turnstiles, bored out of their minds, checking people's bags. They might catch a few drunks and confiscate a few dime bags and knives, but that's about it. Cops' time, and the city's money would be better spent on patrols elsewhere.
There may be another reason for the random checks, and that is to get the citizenry used to such official interruptions of their lives. While this second possibility shows that whoever thinks up these policies has a brain in his head, it is just as worrisome as the first possibility, if not more so.
If the purpose of the turnstile checkpoints is to prevent terrorism, the underlying idea might have a modicum of merit. Its implementation, however, is mind bogglingly stupid.
Suppose a terrorist carries his payload down the subway steps. Suppose there are cops at this particular entrance of the station, conducting random checks. It's hard for the terrorist not to see the cops. To prevent being searched, all the terrorist has to do to carry out his mission is to go back up the steps and either enter the same subway station at a different entrance, or walk to the next stop, which is usually a few blocks away. That's it. Some security system.
Police officers spend countless hours standing at turnstiles, bored out of their minds, checking people's bags. They might catch a few drunks and confiscate a few dime bags and knives, but that's about it. Cops' time, and the city's money would be better spent on patrols elsewhere.
There may be another reason for the random checks, and that is to get the citizenry used to such official interruptions of their lives. While this second possibility shows that whoever thinks up these policies has a brain in his head, it is just as worrisome as the first possibility, if not more so.
Sunday, June 8, 2008
Obviously Unethical
I started reading a cognitive psychology textbook recently. I like brains, I guess.
One thing in particular struck me. In going over the various methods that the brain is studied (fMRI, EEG, etc), the author, some guy at Yale, mentioned studies on animals. Electrodes are placed in their brains to measure neuron activity, parts of monkey and cat brains are intentionally lesioned or lobotomized, among various other invasive techniques. The author then says, "obviously we cannot use these techniques on people."
Well why not? It's unethical, right? Why is it unethical? Obvious reasons (human rights, etc). So then why is it ethical to perform such tests on animals?
The predominant view of consciousness is the higher order thought theory. Consciousness is having thoughts about your mental states. To have a pain, you must think, however inchoate this thought might be, "I have a pain." Since animals, so far as we know, don't have higher order thoughts, they don't feel pain. Sure, they squirm, yelp, and whimper, but they don't feel pain. You see, all those things that animals do when they appear to be in pain are just preprogrammed actions.
First, we know just as little about animal consciousness as we do about human (animal) consciousness.
Second, you know who else lacks higher order thoughts? Little kids until they're around two to three years old, and many retarded adults. Why is it unethical to experiment on them, but ethical to experiment on animals?
Animals are enough like us to warrant studying their brains to learn about our own. Yet, they are apparently different enough to make it ethical to perform extremely cruel experiments on them.
Since the number of neurons doesn't seem to play a role in this demarcation, I guess it's nothing but a sort of species chauvinism. Or maybe it's even less than that, for while it's "obvious" that invasive experiments on the human brain are unethical, maybe it's only obvious because of the various laws preventing such a practice. I bet the obviousness would go away quickly if scientists were allowed to treat human subjects the way they treat their animal subjects.
One thing in particular struck me. In going over the various methods that the brain is studied (fMRI, EEG, etc), the author, some guy at Yale, mentioned studies on animals. Electrodes are placed in their brains to measure neuron activity, parts of monkey and cat brains are intentionally lesioned or lobotomized, among various other invasive techniques. The author then says, "obviously we cannot use these techniques on people."
Well why not? It's unethical, right? Why is it unethical? Obvious reasons (human rights, etc). So then why is it ethical to perform such tests on animals?
The predominant view of consciousness is the higher order thought theory. Consciousness is having thoughts about your mental states. To have a pain, you must think, however inchoate this thought might be, "I have a pain." Since animals, so far as we know, don't have higher order thoughts, they don't feel pain. Sure, they squirm, yelp, and whimper, but they don't feel pain. You see, all those things that animals do when they appear to be in pain are just preprogrammed actions.
First, we know just as little about animal consciousness as we do about human (animal) consciousness.
Second, you know who else lacks higher order thoughts? Little kids until they're around two to three years old, and many retarded adults. Why is it unethical to experiment on them, but ethical to experiment on animals?
Animals are enough like us to warrant studying their brains to learn about our own. Yet, they are apparently different enough to make it ethical to perform extremely cruel experiments on them.
Since the number of neurons doesn't seem to play a role in this demarcation, I guess it's nothing but a sort of species chauvinism. Or maybe it's even less than that, for while it's "obvious" that invasive experiments on the human brain are unethical, maybe it's only obvious because of the various laws preventing such a practice. I bet the obviousness would go away quickly if scientists were allowed to treat human subjects the way they treat their animal subjects.
Saturday, June 7, 2008
The Good Word
I was approached by a proselytizer and his zombie looking assistant at Borders the other day. He was a middle aged Asian man, wearing a suit and holding a worn, leather bound copy of the Bible. His assistant, a young girl with a blank look, stayed a couple of steps behind him. I don't know if they approached everyone in the store to spread the good word or if I was one of the lucky few. Maybe they saw me as more amenable to things religious, standing in front of the Western Philosophy section with my back to the Religion/Occult area, flipping through Are we spiritual machines?: Ray Kurzweil vs. the critics of strong AI. The spiritual thing probably got them.
The man started out by asking me if I know of the Holy Mother. "The Virgin Mary?" I inquired. Oh no, he replied, in a tone that suggested how silly he thought I was. He proceeded to lead me through a series of complicated calculations that led to the conclusion that Mary was the Holy Grandmother. So I said, ok....
Then he asked whether I was an atheist. I said maybe. He said atheists believed in God but were afraid to admit it, and agnostics were confused. I was prepared for the next question---because for some reason this sort of thing happens to me a lot---which was whether I'd like to do Bible study with him.
The first time I was asked to participate in Bible study, in my junior year of college, I foolishly agreed. Studying the Bible, I thought, how bad could it be? I was taken to a house not far from campus. We were to study Paul's Letter to the Galatians, what I call the "infamous circumcision party letter" (because such unfortunate translations make me snicker and I think there are better things to write letters about). I thought we'd read the thing, talk about it, and come to some mutual understanding.
While the house looked normal from the outside, it was really creepy inside. With bright white walls and a bearded man with an Old Testament name, blazing, gaping eyes, and battle attire. He was introduced as being "in charge." I was led through a maze of corridors to an isolated room in the middle of which was a round table and a couple of chairs. It had a large mirror on one side that made it look like an interrogation room. The guy who took me there asked if I was comfortable. Besides the cult-like atmosphere, I replied, everything was great. Then he asked me to pray. Dude, I thought we were going to study the Bible. Yes, he said, but first we must pray. I stumbled out of the room, found my way past Abraham or Jeremiah or whatever his name was, and escaped back to campus.
All this came flooding back to me, so I said to this man at Borders, no thanks. Then he said, but the Bible is important. Scientists say that the world will end in 2012, and Nostradamus predicted... and so it went. Apparently the Second Coming will take place in Asia, and Christ might return as Chinese (Taiwan or the People's Republic?). The Bible seems contradictory, but that's only because we look at it materialistically (like capitalists or like physicalists?).
We have to be saved, said the man. But why? Jesus really cares about us, he replied. He sacrificed himself for our sins. Dude, Jesus is dead. We live in our own filth in an ocean of air on a little rock in the corner of some out of the way galaxy. No one cares about us, not even us. Secondly, if Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins, then we're saved already. If we're not saved already, then he died in vain, sir.
With great sadness in his eyes, he said, no. We're aliens. We're not from here. Bewildered, I thought to enlighten the man, and started scanning the shelves for Dan Dennett's Breaking the spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. When it couldn't be found (Borders sucks), I looked for Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion, but it wasn't to be found either.
Sensing my loss of interest, the man handed me his card and again invited me to Bible study. He asked for my name and phone number. I regret not knowing my old boss' number offhand, so I said I didn't have a phone. At such times my cell phone usually rings, but I had it on vibrate. He shook my hand and went with his assistant to find the next potential convert.
The religious meme seems to be evolving. Does the Holy Mother reflect the effect of the idea of gender equality? The alien and Nostradamus stuff seems like an interesting update. An Asian Jesus makes more sense with the word's demographics. My favorite is the scientists say the world will end in 2012 part. Well if you say scientists say it, it must be true!
The use of a silent assistant is an old adaptation. (Have religious solicitors ever come to your door by themselves, or aren't they always in groups?) This person seems like she's not doing anything. But her silent, slightly judging presence does a lot of work. Think of how much easier it is to dismiss a salesman when he's by himself. With another person present, it's almost instinctual to be more polite. The wonders of gregarious living.
Hey Ray Kurweil, when machines have the computing power of the brain, will they devote much of their resources to spreading memes too?
The man started out by asking me if I know of the Holy Mother. "The Virgin Mary?" I inquired. Oh no, he replied, in a tone that suggested how silly he thought I was. He proceeded to lead me through a series of complicated calculations that led to the conclusion that Mary was the Holy Grandmother. So I said, ok....
Then he asked whether I was an atheist. I said maybe. He said atheists believed in God but were afraid to admit it, and agnostics were confused. I was prepared for the next question---because for some reason this sort of thing happens to me a lot---which was whether I'd like to do Bible study with him.
The first time I was asked to participate in Bible study, in my junior year of college, I foolishly agreed. Studying the Bible, I thought, how bad could it be? I was taken to a house not far from campus. We were to study Paul's Letter to the Galatians, what I call the "infamous circumcision party letter" (because such unfortunate translations make me snicker and I think there are better things to write letters about). I thought we'd read the thing, talk about it, and come to some mutual understanding.
While the house looked normal from the outside, it was really creepy inside. With bright white walls and a bearded man with an Old Testament name, blazing, gaping eyes, and battle attire. He was introduced as being "in charge." I was led through a maze of corridors to an isolated room in the middle of which was a round table and a couple of chairs. It had a large mirror on one side that made it look like an interrogation room. The guy who took me there asked if I was comfortable. Besides the cult-like atmosphere, I replied, everything was great. Then he asked me to pray. Dude, I thought we were going to study the Bible. Yes, he said, but first we must pray. I stumbled out of the room, found my way past Abraham or Jeremiah or whatever his name was, and escaped back to campus.
All this came flooding back to me, so I said to this man at Borders, no thanks. Then he said, but the Bible is important. Scientists say that the world will end in 2012, and Nostradamus predicted... and so it went. Apparently the Second Coming will take place in Asia, and Christ might return as Chinese (Taiwan or the People's Republic?). The Bible seems contradictory, but that's only because we look at it materialistically (like capitalists or like physicalists?).
We have to be saved, said the man. But why? Jesus really cares about us, he replied. He sacrificed himself for our sins. Dude, Jesus is dead. We live in our own filth in an ocean of air on a little rock in the corner of some out of the way galaxy. No one cares about us, not even us. Secondly, if Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins, then we're saved already. If we're not saved already, then he died in vain, sir.
With great sadness in his eyes, he said, no. We're aliens. We're not from here. Bewildered, I thought to enlighten the man, and started scanning the shelves for Dan Dennett's Breaking the spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon. When it couldn't be found (Borders sucks), I looked for Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion, but it wasn't to be found either.
Sensing my loss of interest, the man handed me his card and again invited me to Bible study. He asked for my name and phone number. I regret not knowing my old boss' number offhand, so I said I didn't have a phone. At such times my cell phone usually rings, but I had it on vibrate. He shook my hand and went with his assistant to find the next potential convert.
The religious meme seems to be evolving. Does the Holy Mother reflect the effect of the idea of gender equality? The alien and Nostradamus stuff seems like an interesting update. An Asian Jesus makes more sense with the word's demographics. My favorite is the scientists say the world will end in 2012 part. Well if you say scientists say it, it must be true!
The use of a silent assistant is an old adaptation. (Have religious solicitors ever come to your door by themselves, or aren't they always in groups?) This person seems like she's not doing anything. But her silent, slightly judging presence does a lot of work. Think of how much easier it is to dismiss a salesman when he's by himself. With another person present, it's almost instinctual to be more polite. The wonders of gregarious living.
Hey Ray Kurweil, when machines have the computing power of the brain, will they devote much of their resources to spreading memes too?
Friday, June 6, 2008
McCain's Speech
From cable news to the scybala of the blogging world, it seems every half-wit with access to communications equipment is talking about how McCain messed up a speech on the night of Obama's clinching of the Democratic nomination. Obama, in front of thousands of people, gave an inspiring speech, they say. Energetic, youthful, hopeful, and other adjectives that make the mediocre inhabitants of the mainstream feel all warm and fuzzy inside. McCain, on the other hand, with an ugly green backdrop, looking old in front of just a few hundred people, gave a lackluster speech.
Election campaigns sometimes amuse, but mostly exasperate me. McCain's speech writer didn't do his best work. So what? What does that have to do with what kind of president McCain would be? What does that have to do with what kind of president Obama would be?
If voters were rational, no one would care about the spectacle of speeches. All we would need to know is what policies each candidate supports. Whichever candidate whose views most closely match our own would get our vote.
But voters are irrational. They are stupid. They'd rather vote for the better speaker; the better actor; the better people person. The guy who isn't stiff, or awkward. The guy who will lie to your face to get what he wants from you. So candidates visit restaurants and factories. They ride in pickup trucks. They endlessly shake hands and kiss babies. They talk about "important" issues, like abortion and gun control.
It's all a big farce. If there were any real difference between the candidates there wouldn't be a need for this condescending approach to campaigning.
So long as voters remain morons, they deserve poor leaders. I'm happy that whoever wins the presidential election will fulfill that role.
Election campaigns sometimes amuse, but mostly exasperate me. McCain's speech writer didn't do his best work. So what? What does that have to do with what kind of president McCain would be? What does that have to do with what kind of president Obama would be?
If voters were rational, no one would care about the spectacle of speeches. All we would need to know is what policies each candidate supports. Whichever candidate whose views most closely match our own would get our vote.
But voters are irrational. They are stupid. They'd rather vote for the better speaker; the better actor; the better people person. The guy who isn't stiff, or awkward. The guy who will lie to your face to get what he wants from you. So candidates visit restaurants and factories. They ride in pickup trucks. They endlessly shake hands and kiss babies. They talk about "important" issues, like abortion and gun control.
It's all a big farce. If there were any real difference between the candidates there wouldn't be a need for this condescending approach to campaigning.
So long as voters remain morons, they deserve poor leaders. I'm happy that whoever wins the presidential election will fulfill that role.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)