sabbatic13

Socrates' ideas, or rather Plato's representations thereof, belong to a cultural context radically different from our own and have absolutely no relevance. Greece was undergoing a transition from orality to literacy at the time. It was also in the early stages of actual educational institutions. What the distribution of a few manuscripts in that context meant relates to nothing in our modern world.

Not to be a jerk about it, but the misuse of history is characteristic of very pernicious rhetoric.

"Sturdy roads, aqueducts, buildings, and military equipment are basically the things you want to have in order to consolidate and maintain power over a large area for a long period of time." The first three are also the things you want to have, well, civilization. You know, clean water, the ability to conduct trade outside of your immediate area, etc. It's about economics, not control.

Nice. When lawsuits are directed _against_ the content giants, she's all for the letter of the law and due process:http://www.wired.com/2008/03/riaa-racketeeri/

I feel so much better knowing that such intelligent sexagenarians are helping hollywood control the internet.

That was covered in the article. Disrupting the default order allows you to put emphasis on certain words, in your case, you'd want the color adjective to stand out. The other option, which I don't think the article covered, would be to change the rhythm and speed of the phrase slightly and put an audible emphasis on red.

Keep mind that Google was initially installed as the default search engine years ago, because FF users voted for it to be so. Only after Google saw how many search referrals they then got from FF, did they, that is Google, suggest an actual deal (which paid, incidentally, only a few percent of the market value for those referrals.). That deal doesn't include anything preventing users from changing the defaults.

Consider as well the Awesome Bar. The ability to search your history easily resulted in fewer users going back to Google and generating search referrals. Mozilla implemented it anyway, because it was good for the user.

You seem to be missing the point that overthrows your assertion. Yes, there is still a deal with Google, but Mozilla doesn't care if doing and advocating what's good for the user makes that relationship less and less valuable for Google. They are, in fact, sacrificing potential financial gain for the sake of their principles.

Mozilla has numerous, egregious faults, but this kind of hypocrisy and ethical lapses aren't among them.

Perpetuating the illusion that there are innumerable grave threats that require resource-intensive responses is a useful tool for ensuring that more anti-terrorism money from the federal government gets poured into the city. It's not all incompetence.

Please let it be car dealerships and mattress salespersons. (crosses fingers)

It seems to me that if someone is just honestly interested in meeting people and hearing whatever about them, then they are by nature rather social and extroverted and scarcely need advice on how to start conversations. For most people who aren't social butterflies, conversations are either simple social gestures or they actually have a point. When they have a point, you should ask what interests you, and if it interests them too, then you've found someone with whom a conversation could be worthwhile.

And what exactly do you think you mean by "I think we're reaching the limits of the English language with that one."? The semantic "limit" of the 3rd person plural pronoun is that there is an explicit or implicit, antecedent substantive referent. Your nonsense compounds itself.

I'm sorry, but you generalized about the same billion people and even offered a completely imaginary 90% statistic to boot. And I'm not an outsider, not to the industry, not to web services, not to social networks, not to FB itself. I've been a user and an employee and a consultant for all of those things.

"indispensably useful tool" is way too strong. They find it a service that is hard, or at least usually undesirable, to do without.

Rules like these aren't really good guide to style though. They are the sort of guidelines suited to curing teenagers of bad habits. That's the problem I have with articles like these. They aren't adult discussions of language; they do not teach effective writing, and do not promote an understanding of language. One should ideally outgrow such pedagogy by one's second year of college.

How do you handle "fairly"? It is similarly polyvalent.

There's a difference in meaning between "he ran home" and "he was running home." Most people aren't aware enough of the language they use to avoid overusing certain things, but mechanical transformations aren't the answer. One should aspire to learn how language works, and then use it appropriately.

I found this article rather superficial. It touched on a few (very few) points of comparison and ignored a huge number of factors affecting entrepreneurship in Europe.

Rather than waste time expanding on that though, I have a question. In this statement " If we truly believe the next global superstar in tech will hail from Europe, why would we only fund them at one-fifth the amount of their future US competitors?" Who the hell is "we"?

Of course, this question begs the question of whether "we" believe any such thing, because no such idea follows at all from the preceding disquisition. We have several arguments, weak arguments, trying to prop up the idea of a healthy startup ecosystem, and then suddenly we are defining success by the measure of outliers.

But in any event, who is we? The would-be pundits? The startup people in Europe? VC's? The people who give VC's money? Only the last two have any real say in where the money is invested, the VC's much more than the funders.

Do VC's generally believe this? If not, why? Is the claim that they are benighted and too envious. I would find that surprising, given that all the San Hill people I know are hyper-capitalists, to put it mildly, and crunch numbers as readily as most people blink on a windy day.

It's commonplace for VC's to get article and interviews published, given that half of their job is self-marketing, but to be blunt, the attempt to sound like a pundit/prophet is usually much better than this.

And? He was paraphrasing what he'd like to see, not drafting legislation verbatim.

Excellent links.

Umm, documentary fallacy much? That and pretending like hundreds of scripts written by dozens of hands somehow cohere.

Oh, yes, and that thing about people not living according to economic theories, but having societies and cultures, only a slice of which economic theories try to capture. And while I'm at it, the fact that economic theories float above the actual behavior of humans and only thinly capture what they are up to, while floating below any serious philosophy that explain why people should or do anything in the first place.

Well, in his defense, your Bundy and Armstrong examples are just awful, and the bit about whether X is moral or Y is moral is even worse. You've begged the question of what defines morality entirely and replaced a rational basis for evaluation with the assumption that most people you know would consider one thing "worse" than another.

Here's an equally worse argument. If I took a knife away from Ted Bundy, when I encountered him walking around a park at night, wouldn't that be immoral, because taking things that belong to other people is wrong? If I took a syringe of enhancement drugs away from Lance Armstrong, as we both prepared for a race, wouldn't that be immoral.

Your Bundy example implies that the only reason one would or would not kill someone is whether they listen to Ted Bundy. That's a ridiculous mockup. Personally, if Bundy begged me not to kill someone, I'd assume the person was his accomplice. As for Lance, cycling advice isn't moral advice, and it would be perfectly reasonable to refuse to have anything to do with someone, because you found them morally reprehensible. In fact, taking cycling lessons from Lance at this point would simply reinforce the notion that what he did was not seriously wrong and this make one complicit.

In any event, since you are bandying the word "morality" around, let me bring up the issue of "moral authority." If someone's moral authority is suspect, one should not, in general, look to them for moral guidance.

The problem with most libertarian beliefs is that they are very high-level and most attempts to apply and create a coherent system fail miserably. At their most useful, they can influence the current system to prevent certain undesirable excesses, but as an ideology, it's long on corrections and short on workable alternatives.

It's also the case that those fews well-informed and articulate libertarians who are engaged in politics never seem to be the ones who actually run for anything. Look at the Libertarian candidates for public office in the US over the years. Would you want a "ferret activist" as Lt. Governor of California? You could have had, complete with ferret in hand in his official election photo in the ballot handbook.

Libertarianism is an orientation and an armchair pursuit.

I wouldn't write off mockery as unproductive. It's been an element of perfectly productive political discourse since the beginning of recorded political discourse. If done well and in an informed fashion, it ends up dispelling the illusion that any ignorant bit of pseudo-theory someone can conjure up is worthy of the public sphere.

I'm afraid your knowledge of history is almost completely inaccurate.

The "Goths" were just a few dozens Germanic tribes who moved West and conquered territory which was already occupied by Germanic tribes. Now, before the latter Germans started pushing West so hard, ca. 500 BCE, there were Celts in a lot of these regions, but 1) current Celtic populations don't show any evidence of "Aboriginal Bread"; 2) Celts are very closely related genetically, culturally, and linguistically to both the Italic and Germanic peoples; 3)the Baltic peoples are Indo-European too. They aren't "aborigines," and certainly not culturally distinct and exemplary of some multi-millenial cultural continuity distinct from the Germans or Celts or Italians or Greeks or Albanians or Iranian or Indo-Aryans...etc. The non-Indo-European and non-Finno-Ugric Neolithic peoples of Europe disappeared under waves of IE and Finno-Ugric immigration everywhere (except possibly for the Basque).

The only non-immigrants are people who stayed very near the North shore of the Black Sea, but it's nonsense to claim that because they didn't move much in 5.5K years, they remembered how to make their ancestral bread, while no one else did. That area itself saw waves of immigrants (both IE and non-IE) and was basically part of the East-West highway, so the opposite scenario is much more likely.

Moreover, while the Romans enslaved people from various conquered populations, they did not enslave whole regions or tribes or clans or what have you. Prisoners were taken here and there, but large populations and their cultures were not lost to slavery. In addition, all those Germanic tribes and other conquered peoples _were_ most of the Roman Empire eventually. They didn't get enslaved or absorbed, nor did they conform much. They just took over.

One might also point out that the Northern and Western European diets never conformed to the Mediterranean.

And your dad's alternative would be what? To balkanize science and engineering? To create dozens of separate islands of knowledge? To slow the spread of knowledge, because everything deemed significant has to be translated to and from 20 languages to gain general currency?

How is one or even a thousand persons' inability to learn another language an argument for how science should be practiced?

But the Queen's Guard is dependent on the Canadians for the bear skins they need to make those giant grenadier hats. If we invade Canada and put that vital commodity in jeopardy, the regiment may attack the White House in the name of outrageous fashion (also because those hats insult the French, every time they wear them, so it's a 2fer).

Ah yes, I jumped into a PhD program after the college experience. That's a great butt-kicking too, because suddenly you are responsible for justifying anything and everything you might say or write about something.

At least I learned how to live on far less than 20K a year. I mean, it was the 90's, and it was in new Jersey, but that still wasn't a fortune (and I had a bad book buying habit).

It is, but there's also some historical friction between the people who hack on gecko (like smedberg) and the people who hack on the services that tie into the browser, so sometimes it's diversity of opinion, and sometimes it's tribalism.

In this case, I'd be more inclined to listen to the commenter on his blog, Monica Chew. She's the security/privacy developer. Smedberg is a stone-cold genius who brought such things as Electronlysis to FFx, but he isn't blogging as a security expert. So, it's an informed and intelligent opinion, but it's not quite an expert one and the wording may be somewhat colored by the long-standing tradition of Platform Engineering pointing out where Services Development is getting it wrong.. IMHO at least.

This is quite true.

The best thing I ever did to preserve and improve my brain was find things, really hard things, about which I was passionate. It's not so much about studying as it is about finding subjects and venues of learning that just kick your ass. If you don't have the experience of getting your intellectual butt kicked, and if you don't have the ability to learn from the experience, you can only grow so much.

The easy stuff shouldn't be avoided; you should just expect yourself to pick it up as necessary. If you are not getting challenged, if you don't encounter people who are way ahead of you in some subjects, then you are doing it wrong. The feedback is key. Getting stopped in your tracks, just when you thought you were running along at a good clip is invaluable.

Not that I ever achieved greatness, and I do sometimes ask myself why, even in my private life, I always pick the really hard to study (and have for decades now). I'm sure masochism is involved, but the good stuff is just hard, and you have to be willing to be someone's idiot some of the time to learn.

It's also the first time all the work that went into my doctoral exam in Proto-Indo-European Verbal Morphology has been relevant to, well, anything on HN. O.K., it's pronouns, but I had to study those too.

The last class I got to help teach in Grad School was The Nature and History of the English language. Leading undergrads to this epiphany is also very gratifying (that and being able to explain the weirdness that is English orthography).

Oh, and no, the plural wasn't used as a formal singular. It was idiomatic to occasionally use the first person plural to refer to oneself (you can see this in Cicero's letters), but it had nothing to do with formality or some sort of "royal we."