Advice to a Junior in High School?
Howard Nease
my future career path. Here is my situation:
I am a bright Junior in a very well-respected private high school, taking
almost all AP and accelerated classes. I am HIGHLY interested in technology,
more specifically the field of Computer Science and software engineering. I
have heard a whole lot about the fact that the market for software engineers
nowadays is *HORRIBLE*, and that I should double major or perhaps go into a
field of study in which I'm not very interested.
I would be devastated were I to find the need to leave computer science. I
love the subject, and I've wanted to be a computer scientist ever since I
was 12 years old.
Does anyone have any advice for me and my future? What should I study in
college? Will the market for jobs get better? Do I have any hope at all of
finding a decent-paying job in compsci? What languages do you suggest that I
study (I'm already studying Python)?
thank you very much for your help!
--shn
Kenny Tilton
Howard Nease wrote:
> Hello, everyone. I would appreciate any advice that someone could give me on
> my future career path. Here is my situation:
>
> I am a bright Junior in a very well-respected private high school, taking
> almost all AP and accelerated classes. I am HIGHLY interested in technology,
> more specifically the field of Computer Science and software engineering. I
> have heard a whole lot about the fact that the market for software engineers
> nowadays is *HORRIBLE*, and that I should double major or perhaps go into a
> field of study in which I'm not very interested.
By the time you graduate it will be a different world. There will be a
shortage because everyone is being told the same thing you are. A glut
arose because folks were being told the opposite. These same folks give
up looking for a job in compsci after a month, you'll get a job as a
waiter and look for a year. and you can settle for less because you love
the work. the latter will also make you better at it than money chasers,
and will help you interview better.
btw, i would say this even if you were from a highly-disrespected inner
city public school. :)
--
kenny tilton
clinisys, inc
http://www.tilton-technology.com/
---------------------------------------------------------------
"Career highlights? I had two. I got an intentional walk from
Sandy Koufax and I got out of a rundown against the Mets."
-- Bob Uecker
Kenny Tilton
Howard Nease wrote:
> H What languages do you suggest that I
> study (I'm already studying Python)?
PS. Common Lisp
Sean Ross
news:Ivw2b.1305$Ce2...@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com...
> What should I study in college?
Hi. Are you asking which areas in the field of computer science you should
try to specialize in (take courses in)? Are you asking which comp. sci. (or
non-comp.sci. courses) would be beneficial (for getting work, for rounding
your knowledge, for making you happy, for all of the above and more)?
What you should study in college may well depend on your chosen college's
degree requirements. My university, for instance, requires us to take
atleast 8 classes outside of our discipline (I chose to do a minor in
philosophy, in order to meet that requirement).
It's hard to say what you should study. What are your goals? What would you
like to learn? What would you like to do? Do you want to be a computer
scientist? a programmer? a software engineer? a network administrator? a
security professional? a web-application developer, or something else?
Depending upon what you want to do, what you should learn may differ.
For the time being, you're still in high school, so let's start there. Take
all of the math and science courses you can. Finite (discrete) mathematics,
if it is offered, is particularly useful. If your school offers any kind of
logic course, take that. If you're looking to be in management, business
courses might be useful. Take literature courses (you'll have to write
papers as you move further towards being a computer scientist, best get some
practice writing now). But, most importantly, take what interests you!
In university (or college), you can follow advice similar to that above.
Especially, "take what interests you". Take any required maths, and, if you
like, take any other discrete math courses. As for computer science courses:
You'll likely have a core curriculum to follow for the first 2-3 years, so
you may not have a lot of choice in which courses to take. In 3rd and 4th
year you'll likely get to specialize more. If your school offers a compiler
course, take it. Most of what you learn there is applicable in other
domains. If your school offers an interface design course, take that. If
your school offers software design courses, take those.
Other than this, it's difficult to suggest courses. It depends on your
interests and the courses that are offered. Are you interested in AI,
A-Life, evolutionary computing? Are you interested in cryptography,
security, networking? Are you interested in distributed or parellel
computing? Again, "take what interests you".
> What languages do you suggest that I study (I'm already studying Python)?
Learn C (atleast, and maybe C++). Learn an assembly language. Learn Scheme
(Lisp, Dylan, Haskell, ocaml, or some other functional programming
language). Learn Prolog (or some other logic programming language). Learn
Java. Learn Perl. Learn what interests you.
I hope that was somewhat helpful,
Sean
Afanasiy
wrote:
I would make sure to consider a field, in a non-computer science, which
allows/requires you to use your interest/skills in computer programming.
I believe I chose the right words, so read them carefully. I don't think
that leaves any questions of me. Your decision should be your decision.
Languages...
Whatever appeals to you, but that probably depends on what you want to do.
Afanasiy
>Howard Nease wrote:
>> H What languages do you suggest that I
>> study (I'm already studying Python)?
>
>PS. Common Lisp
I'd recommend considering it. I considered it, but I do not like it.
I do greatly admire the advocate whose essays prompted me to try though.
His essays often express my feelings with such uncanny precision I forced
myself to try Lisp again, with much more determination than previously.
I would also recommend not giving much weight to anything from ESR.
Others will probably recommend the opposite of what I have. I think you
should do a lot of your own exploring. Consider as much as you can, no
matter what someone online says for or against it.
Tony Meyer
> But, most importantly, take what interests you!
This is the only rule to follow, whatever you want to end up doing at the
end (plus the corollaries "take the prerequisites for what interests you",
and "take whatever you are forced to by the administration"), computer
science, business, arts, whatever. If you don't do that, then you end up
either with poor marks (no matter how smart you are) or hating studying.
The corresponding rule, of course, is to only apply for jobs that interest
you. This should mean that if you've followed the above, you have all the
qualifications you need (as well as some others, hopefully).
Just my opinion, but based on many years of study as well as observing my
students.
=Tony Meyer
Jose Rodriguez
I agree with another post in that you should look into a real field
where you might be able to use the computer 'hobby' aspects of it in
your field. For instance, be a doctor such as an oconologist,
radiologist, or ear-noste-throat. These are great, high paying
positions that are becoming extremely computer intensive. I look at
it from the standpoint of practicality.... you'll never want for a
job since there has been a demand in most sections of the country for
the last 30+ years, you'll get paid a ridiculous salary, and have a
normal work week of 25 - 50 hours.
Enjoy the Porchse, the yacht, and the time to focus your skills in
programming.
Michele Simionato
> I think you
> should do a lot of your own exploring. Consider as much as you can, no
> matter what someone online says for or against it.
Hear, hear: this is good advice!
On a more personal note, when I was more or less your age I decided
to do Physics, even if I knew very well that the job situation was a
disaster. Now, it turns out that the situation is still a disaster and I
have just decided to quit the field.
I have found some people telling me that I made the bad choice and that
I should have chosen a more marketable field. I don't think so.
I did what I wanted to do: whereas most of the people do for
all their life a job they dislike, I at least avoided that for
part of my life. I had the opportunity of doing something and I took
it.
If you have the chance of having something you like to do, don't throw
it away to follow the advice of the others. Your life is your responsability.
Michele Simionato, Ph. D.
MicheleS...@libero.it
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~micheles
--- Currently looking for a job ---
Jacek Generowicz
broad a range of languages as possible. Awareness and appreciation of
other styles of programming can make you a better programmer, even in
languages which do not provide direct support for the styles you
learned in other languages, and whose communities are not familiar the
lessons learned in other communities.
It seems to be extremely popular in the field of Information
Technology (and by association, in the field of Computer Science), to
avoid learning the lessons learned by others in the past, an re-invent
the wheel repeatedly, usually making many mistakes on the way.
Try to study the evolution of different families of languages, and try
to observe what lessons were learned in the family's history. That
way, you are less likely to be blinded by the hype that accompanies
the latest fad language that comes along, but will be able to assess
its worth.
Remember that popularity and quality are very weakly correlated.
I don't wish to suggest that populatrity is not important, but it's
not all there is.
The popularity of a given idea waxes and wanes; its inherent quality
remains constant.
"Sean Ross" <sr...@connectmail.carleton.ca> writes:
> (Lisp, Dylan, Haskell, ocaml, or some other functional programming
> language).
As an added bonus, studying many langugas reduces the chances of you
misclassifying them, as has been done above :-)
Cameron Laird
Afanasiy <abeli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
.
.
.
>I would also recommend not giving much weight to anything from ESR.
.
.
What's going on *there*? Eric makes plenty of mistakes,
and he's apparently stubborn and biased in many cases; on
the other hand, while I disagree with him profoundly on
some technical choices, and I've been told of all sorts
of personal failings he exhibits, in my experience he's
always been willing to correct errors when presented with
evidence. So: are you saying that he simply says too much
and too early, and consequently is unreliable because he's
outside his domain of expertise, or do you perceive a deeper
problem with his advice?
I ask in part because, as near as I can tell, you were the
first to mention him in this thread. It appears that you
regard his output as particularly hazardous.
--
Cameron Laird <Cam...@Lairds.com>
Business: http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal: http://phaseit.net/claird/home.html
Peter Hansen
>
> I agree with another post in that you should look into a real field
> where you might be able to use the computer 'hobby' aspects of it in
> your field. For instance, be a doctor such as an oconologist,
> radiologist, or ear-noste-throat. These are great, high paying
> positions that are becoming extremely computer intensive. I look at
> it from the standpoint of practicality.... you'll never want for a
> job since there has been a demand in most sections of the country for
> the last 30+ years, you'll get paid a ridiculous salary, and have a
> normal work week of 25 - 50 hours.
Getting rather off-topic here, but I can't let this pass. A
recent survey of doctors in the Toronto area showed that something
like 70% of them felt that their work was very high stress, took
them away from their family far too much, and took much more than
25-50 hours. The article I read (sorry, no reference...) also
indicated that the suicide rate among doctors was much higher
than the average.
Never make a job decision based largely on salary... do what you
want to do, and find a way to make it pay enough to live on.
You'll be much much happier in the long run.
-Peter
Robert Kern
"Howard Nease" <hne...@midsouth.rr.com> writes:
[snip]
> Does anyone have any advice for me and my future? What should I study in
> college?
Well, in addition to what everyone else has said, I would recommend
taking some classes that hone your ability to analyze numerical data.
There ought to be classes from a variety of departments at your college
that can teach you this skill. It's likely *one* of them will catch your
interest. In my experience, that core skill is easily transfered between
fields. Once you learn how to handle the numbers, it doesn't matter if
they are temperature readings or stock prices.
That skill will open a large number of career paths where your CS skills
and interests are respected and used. Many of them pay well, too.
Of course, that doesn't help you in the slightest if you're just not
interested in those fields. Use your college experience to explore (lots
of things really, but let's focus on the career aspects here ;-)). When
you visit colleges, try to ask the older kids if they had the
opportunity to "shop around" and discover what they really wanted to do.
To get you started, I'll tell you right now that Caltech is not such a
place.
> Will the market for jobs get better?
Probably. Six years is a *long* time for the computer world.
For that matter, six years is a long time for a person your age, too.
I'm quite sure you will be a very different person when you graduate
from college. Trust me: I'm six years ahead of you. ;-)
And for now, forget us old fogies, go out, and have some fun, goddammit!
--
Robert Kern
ke...@caltech.edu
"In the fields of hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die."
-- Richard Harter
Sean Ross
> "Sean Ross" <sr...@connectmail.carleton.ca> writes:
>
> > (Lisp, Dylan, Haskell, ocaml, or some other functional programming
> > language).
>
> As an added bonus, studying many langugas reduces the chances of you
> misclassifying them, as has been done above :-)
Okay. "..., or some other language that supports functional programming
style)" (which would include those mentioned, and many more besides). For
instance,
http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Programming/Languages/Functional/?tc=1
Aleph (1)
BETA (8)
Caml (2)
Clean (6)
Dylan (19) <
Erlang (313)
Haskell (48) <
Leda (5)
Lisp (378) <
Logo (46)
Lua (18)
Mercury (4)
Miranda (10)
ML (35)
Mozart (2)
Objective Caml (5) <
Pliant (16)
POP-11 (6)
REBOL (95)
Scheme (127)
Sisal (12)
Whatever.
Sean
Jacek Generowicz
Terry Reedy
"Howard Nease" <hne...@midsouth.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Ivw2b.1305$Ce2...@clmboh1-nws5.columbus.rr.com...
engineers
> nowadays is *HORRIBLE*, and that I should double major or perhaps go
into a
> field of study in which I'm not very interested.
The demand for software engineers has fluctuated up and down, in
various industries and regions, for decades. An article in the
current Business 2.0 on the 'coming labor shortage' points out that
you are part of the first generation in America to be numerically
smaller than your parents generation. In ten years, when boomers have
or are retiring, there will probably be a relatively shortage of tech
workers.
TJR
A. Lloyd Flanagan
> my future career path. Here is my situation:
>
> Does anyone have any advice for me and my future? What should I study in
> college? Will the market for jobs get better? Do I have any hope at all of
> finding a decent-paying job in compsci? What languages do you suggest that I
> study (I'm already studying Python)?
>
I would say that more important than learning any particular language
is learning the theoretical aspects of the job, including the math.
Languages change, the theory will benefit you all your life.
That said, I agree that you should learn and study a variety of
languages. Each carries with it a particular way of thinking about a
problem, and once you understand that way of thinking you can apply it
elsewhere.
As for a job in CompSci, I'd say if you were in it for a steady job,
doing the same sort of thing for years, getting good pay without too
much work, you're really in the wrong field. Amazingly, a lot of
people working today have that attitude. Many more are trying to
figure out where their jobs went.
You sound like someone with a real love for the field and a desire to
keep learning and improving yourself. If that's the case, you'll do
fine.
Gerrit Holl
Note that this is true for (almost) all western countries.
In Dutch it's called "vergrijzing".
regards,
Gerrit, who happens to study a field with an extreme shortage of
engineers/scientists (applied physics), which will be only worse/better
in 5 years... (The Netherlands)
--
271. If any one hire oxen, cart and driver, he shall pay one hundred
and eighty ka of corn per day.
-- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law
--
Asperger Syndroom - een persoonlijke benadering:
http://people.nl.linux.org/~gerrit/
Het zijn tijden om je zelf met politiek te bemoeien:
http://www.sp.nl/
Josh
...
> Does anyone have any advice for me and my future? What should I study in
> college? Will the market for jobs get better? Do I have any hope at all of
> finding a decent-paying job in compsci? What languages do you suggest that I
> study (I'm already studying Python)?
I'd suggest C++, because it's complex and hideous, and you'll probably
be dealing with complex hideous things in the software industry--so
it's best to start early.
Tim Churches
> Sent: Tuesday, 26 August 2003 7:03 PM
> To: pytho...@python.org
> Subject: Celebrity advice (was: Advice to a Junior in High School?)
>
> In article <hgflkvsjpcfj1l0m2...@4ax.com>,
> Afanasiy <abeli...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >I would also recommend not giving much weight to anything from ESR.
>
> and he's apparently stubborn and biased in many cases; on
> the other hand, while I disagree with him profoundly on
> some technical choices, and I've been told of all sorts
> of personal failings he exhibits, in my experience he's
> always been willing to correct errors when presented with
> evidence.
Except when it comes to guns - despite all the evidence that
the ready availability of firearms to the general population
Results in huge numbers of avoidable homicides, suicides, injuries,
incarceration and general mayhem, ESR actively promotes a
puerile pro-gun libertarianism AND links that view to the open
Source culture. The aphorism which appears at the top left corner
of his blog (see http://armedndangerous.blogspot.com/) is:
"Sex, software, politics, and firearms. Life's simple pleasures..."
I'd suggest that the last of those pastimes makes him a less
than ideal speaker for a junior high school (and I didn't even
mention Columbine...) - the first three are of course perfectly
legitimate topics for such a speaker.
> I ask in part because, as near as I can tell, you were the
> first to mention him in this thread. It appears that you
> regard his output as particularly hazardous.
See the first few paragraphs of
http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html
Tim C
John J. Lee
Who knows? There are plenty of clever, hard-working people in India
who speak good English. It would be a good thing if more computing
jobs moved there, IMHO, and that certainly seems to be happening to an
extent already.
A lot depends on the location and degree of horror of world events, I
fear. Just to cheer you up ;-/
John
Stan Graves
I suppose we should just chalk that up to the angst of a 17 year old.
There is nothing magical, mystical, or more enlightening about
computer science compared with any other profession, vocation or
avocation. If you really would be "devastated" to not be a computer
scientist, I would recommend some counseling to address your
perceptions of your worth and value as a person.
> I
> love the subject, and I've wanted to be a computer scientist ever since I
> was 12 years old.
I've changed professional aspirations at least a dozen times since I
was 12 years old. I've actually changed professions 6 times since I
was 12 years old.
> Does anyone have any advice for me and my future?
Yes. Volunteer in your community, read to children, talk to your
grandparents and find out where you came from, visit art galleries,
learn to cook, be a good listener, support your local animal shelters,
always stop and buy lemonade from kids in the neighborhood, read one
really good book a year - start with Shakespeare or Mark Twain, learn
to dance, attend at least one ballet or symphony a year, take a nap at
least once a month, stretch before exercising, tip generously, travel,
spend less than you earn, and finally - understand that what you do
for a living does not define who you are as a person.
> What should I study in
> college?
You should learn to think and to learn in college.
Focus on problem decomposition - there are no interesting problems
that can be solved in one bite...everything has to be broken down into
smaller pieces.
Study literature - I have yet to see a single computer scientist who
can manipulate symbols as well as Shakespeare.
Take a music appreciation class. The development of musical theory
and composition provides a good parallel for the understanding of
complex systems interactions. I have yet to meet a single computer
scientist who can manage complex systems architecture as well as
Beethoven.
> Will the market for jobs get better? Do I have any hope at all of
> finding a decent-paying job in compsci?
The market is going to be different than it is today. Better is a
judgment that I do not care to make. The advice I received was to get
a good education and increase your odds of remaining gainfully
employed. It was, and still is, good advice.
> What languages do you suggest that I
> study (I'm already studying Python)?
I'd suggest English. The ability to communicate effectively is
probably more important than any technical skill.
If you get tired of studying English, then you might try German. I
love the structure of the Germanic languages. If you live in the
southwest, perhaps Spanish would be a good language to study.
If you still insist that specific topics in computer science have any
more value than something else, I'd recommend the following:
- Pick a text editor. Learn it inside and out. Use it for
everything.
- Pick a unix shell. Learn it inside and out. Use it for everything.
- Use a source code control system for everything - no matter how
large or small the project.
- Use make for every project, no matter how small.
- Favor "standards" over proprietary tools.
- Learn to write web pages...using the standards!
- Learn C.
- Learn C++. Learn it both as an OO language, and as a proceedural
language.
- Learn one new language a year.
--Stan Graves
d.w. harks
As a junior in high school, rather than worrying so much about *what* to study
in college, I'd suggest carefully looking at *where* to study. A Bachelor of
Science in Computer Science from one school won't be the same as another --
try to think of what topics you're most interested in and find schools that
have professors who specialize in those fields. They'll end up helping you
decide what to study as you go, because they'll be able to see what your
interests (and talents) are. (Something that your words on a mailing-list
don't identify all that well!)
For now, keep all your grades up and start visiting colleges. Don't sweat the
other stuff just yet...the school you choose will have a program laid out,
and you'll choose electives within it, but it'll be pretty straightforward
and will give you an opportunity to explore and figure out if/what you want
to study in grad school.
Don't forget to enjoy the stuff you're learning, and don't sweat the job
market thing. If you have the ability and the love of CS, supporting yourself
will come along in ways you can never plan for. Just do what you love, and
you'll be amazed at what happens.
dave
--
d.w. harks <da...@psys.org> http://dwblog.psys.org
Terry Reedy
"John J. Lee" <j...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:873cfo6...@pobox.com...
> "Terry Reedy" <tjr...@udel.edu> writes:
> > The demand for software engineers has fluctuated up and down, in
> > various industries and regions, for decades. An article in the
> > current Business 2.0 on the 'coming labor shortage' points out
that
> > you are part of the first generation in America to be numerically
> > smaller than your parents generation. In ten years, when boomers
have
> > or are retiring, there will probably be a relatively shortage of
tech
> > workers.
>
> Who knows? There are plenty of clever, hard-working people in India
> who speak good English. It would be a good thing if more computing
> jobs moved there, IMHO, and that certainly seems to be happening to
an
> extent already.
The same article pointed out that 1) much of the outsourcing is lower
level call-center jobs; 2) programmer salaries are already rising in
India because most of the good talent is already employed; 3) the
shortage anticipated is greater that the anticipated extra supply in
India, China, etc. Who know...
TJR
Asun Friere
> Except when it comes to guns
You should know better than getting into a discussion with Americans about guns.
Paul Boddie
Before we get into a long and pointless debate, it should be said that
the film "Bowling for Columbine" does have a more sophisticated point
about the relationship between gun availability and criminal acts than
is typically made out or assumed (usually by people who haven't seen
it, I might add). And with that, I'd advise anyone interested in
pursuing such a debate to take it to the appropriate forums (and to
see the film, too).
Meanwhile, given ESR's latest "Star Wars trip" (as published by
NewsForge and a whole load of other places by now, I'm sure) there's a
strong argument for the issue of T-shirts which read "STFU ESR".
Because like all of us, there are times when saying nothing is
substantially better than saying something, especially when repeated
references to "Obi-Wan", "The Emperor" and "Rebel Command" are made.
Paul
Jacek Generowicz
> Cameron Laird wrote:
>
> > I ask in part because, as near as I can tell, you were the
> > first to mention him in this thread. It appears that you
> > regard his output as particularly hazardous.
>
> See the first few paragraphs of
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html
If you wish to strengthen a prejudice you might have about ESR's
writings being dangerous, then, yes, read the first few paragraphs of
http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html
and stop there. You will pass on with that warm fuzzy feeling that
smug satisfaction gives you. Whatever you do, don't read on. If you do
read on, certainly don't stop to think about what is actually written
there. If you do think about it, then don't drop the guard of your
prejudice.
It is particularly important to protect yourself behind your prejudice
if you reach the highlighted phrases:
- it all comes down to you
- never count on being able to undo your choices
- the universe doesn't care about motives
for if you do, then you are in danger of realizing that (in spite of
the frequent references to triggers, bullets, death etc.) what you are
reading is _not_ an article about firearms.[1]
And then that warm fuzzy feeling will be replaced by a hollow pit in
your stomach, and we wouldn't want that, would we now !
I thank you (Tim) for pointing out this article.
I thank myself for ignoring your instructions and reading beyond the
first few paragraphs.
[FWIW, I am opposed to the "bearing of firearms". However, given that
I have only lived in courtries in which firearms are not borne by
everyone, I have not had sufficient motivation to base my opinion on
any careful consideration.]
One learns so much more from reading opinions opposed to one's own,
than from reading ones with which you agree. If one suppresses one's
prejudices, at least.
[1] Don't stop reading at this point either, because then you will
fail to realize that it is actually _trying_ very hard to be an
article about firearms, after all. But that only serves to
strengthen my point.
Terry Reedy
"Tim Churches" <tc...@optushome.com.au> writes:
> Cameron Laird wrote:
>
> > I ask in part because, as near as I can tell, you were the
> > first to mention him in this thread. It appears that you
> > regard his output as particularly hazardous.
>
> See the first few paragraphs of
> http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html
I did. 'Few' means at least three. The second and last sentence of
the third paragraph reads
" Every political choice ultimately reduces to a choice about when and
how to use lethal force, because the threat of lethal force is what
makes politics and law more than a game out of which anyone could opt
at any time."
Do you disagree (with what seems to me like an obviously true
statement)? Or are you one who doesn't the 'people' to notice the
elitist hypocrisy of being 'anti-gun' while supporting the bearing
*and use* of guns by 'govern-men' the elitists hope to control? (I
think it safe to say that during the 20th century, 99% of the 100s of
millions of murders were committed by armed govern-men rather than by
private persons acting alone.)
Well back to Python.
Terry J. Reedy
Peter Hansen
>
> (I think it safe to say that during the 20th century, 99% of the 100s of
> millions of murders were committed by armed govern-men rather than by
> private persons acting alone.)
It may be safe to say it, but is it true, or merely hyperbole?
Were there "100s of millions of murders" in the 20th century, assuming
commonplace definitions of "murder" (killing humans), "million"
(10 to the 6th power), and "20th century" (period beginning roughly
January 1, 1900 and ending on or one year before December 31, 2000)?
That's a lot of people getting themselves killed, whatever the cause...
-Peter
rzed
A little overstated, maybe. One site
<http://www.scaruffi.com/politics/massacre.html> estimates about 147
million, and its estimates run a little higher than some others. If
war casualties includes deaths by starvation and the like, and if war
casualties are murder victimes, then it runs reasonably close.
On the other hand,
<http://www.bradycampaign.org/press/release.asp?Record=289> claims
that more Americans have been killed by domestic gun violence between
1979 and 1997 than in battle in all the wars in which America was
involved. Their estimates for the civil war seem low to me, but of
course that preceded the 20th century anyway.
--
rzed
Gerhard Häring
Here's a page with exactly this topic:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
I seem to remember that during World War II alone 50 million people died
because of the war. Not necessarily with weapons, because for example
the Germans invented more efficient ways of mass murder :-( And that
number probably includes indirect deaths caused by famine, etc.
-- Gerhard
Andrew Dalke
> Were there "100s of millions of murders" in the 20th century, assuming
> commonplace definitions of "murder" (killing humans), "million"
> (10 to the 6th power), and "20th century" (period beginning roughly
> January 1, 1900 and ending on or one year before December 31, 2000)?
>
> That's a lot of people getting themselves killed, whatever the cause...
I think Terry means deaths related to war, genocide, and various
internal purges. Here's one source
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
which totals 155 million.
Not all were deaths from arms. Bombs, knives, disease, famine all
played a role. I read one account of the Armenian massacre which said
that people were just forced over a cliff. (Though the people doing the
forcing were armed.) Figure, what, 1/2 of the people died directly as
a consequence of an "armed govern-man"? gives 77 million.
US homicide rates are 9.2 +/- 1.0 per 100,000 claims
http://www.sumeria.net/politics/homrate1.html
Given a population of 4 billion (roughly, over the century) and assuming
the US rate is average for the world, that's
>>> 4000000000 / 100000. * 9.2
368000.0
>>>
or roughly 0.5% of the deaths attributed to murders in the cause of
war. Roughly in line with Terry's claims.
Only we don't normally call those murder. "killing humans"
because you want to do it is usually considered bad. "killing humans"
because enough other people also want them dead is usually
considered okay.
Andrew
da...@dalkescientific.com
Peter Hansen
>
> Peter Hansen
> > Were there "100s of millions of murders" in the 20th century, assuming
> > commonplace definitions of "murder" (killing humans), "million"
> > (10 to the 6th power), and "20th century" (period beginning roughly
> > January 1, 1900 and ending on or one year before December 31, 2000)?
> >
> > That's a lot of people getting themselves killed, whatever the cause...
>
> I think Terry means deaths related to war, genocide, and various
> internal purges. Here's one source
> http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm
> which totals 155 million.
>
> Not all were deaths from arms. Bombs, knives, disease, famine all
> played a role.
I figured it was that. I wasn't questioning the type of killing that
should be called "murder", but the "100s of millions" thing, which evokes
an image of something like a billion people (a mere 10 "100s of millions").
155 million total, while perhaps mind-numbingly high still, is not
really in the "100s of millions" according to the usual interpretation
of such a phrase.
Just wondering... thanks for the links, everyone.
-Peter
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|> (I think it safe to say that during the 20th century, 99% of the 100s of
|> millions of murders were committed by armed govern-men rather than by
|> private persons acting alone.)
Peter Hansen <pe...@engcorp.com> wrote previously:
|It may be safe to say it, but is it true, or merely hyperbole?
|Were there "100s of millions of murders" in the 20th century
The 99% seems like an overstatement. But the 100s of millions does not.
"State sponsored" murder was awfully prevalent in the 20th C (and
before, and since).
A good resource is:
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstats.htm
It's unlikely that a single one of those listed occurrences would have
been substantially different because of local ESR-style gun-nuts in the
various places. In fact, in many or most of the places, the murdered
populations -were- armed in the way ESR advocates.
ESR's "arguments" boil down to: (1) Wow, isn't it fun hearing guns make
a loud bang; (2) Oh yeah, be careful not to point them at people by
accident; (3) This bunch of invented history kinda-sorta supports my
nutsiness, if you squint and don't think about it too hard; (4) Did I
mention that I like to hear loud bangs?
Yours, Lulu...
--
mertz@ _/_/_/_/_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY:_/_/_/_/ v i
gnosis _/_/ Postmodern Enterprises _/_/ s r
.cx _/_/ MAKERS OF CHAOS.... _/_/ i u
_/_/_/_/_/ LOOK FOR IT IN A NEIGHBORHOOD NEAR YOU_/_/_/_/_/ g s
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
> (I think it safe to say that during the 20th century, 99% of the 100s of
> millions of murders were committed by armed govern-men rather than by
> private persons acting alone.)
Peter Hansen <pe...@engcorp.com> wrote previously:
|It may be safe to say it, but is it true, or merely hyperbole?
Terry Reedy
"Peter Hansen" <pe...@engcorp.com> wrote in message
news:3F4CD2A2...@engcorp.com...
> Terry Reedy wrote:
> >
> > (I think it safe to say that during the 20th century, 99% of the
100s of
> > millions of murders were committed by armed govern-men rather than
by
> > private persons acting alone.)
>
> It may be safe to say it, but is it true, or merely hyperbole?
Perhaps both: revise 100s to 200 million, which is close to what I
meant (200-300 mill).
http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm
(thanks all for the link with the list I had in mind)
tabulates +/ 150 million as "maybe ž of all deaths by atrocity in the
20th Century".
I am, of course, labelling insufficiently provoked mass-killing,
direct and indirect, by gangs called armies, militias, security
forces, or whatever as murder, regardless of the 'legal' decrees and
excuses made by the directors of such gangs. (I am also aware that
some would not make such a labelling, and that there are 'degrees' of
provocation, but both topics are beyond the scope of this
explanation.)
> That's a lot of people getting themselves killed, whatever the
cause...
and whatever the even approximately exact number.
Terry J. Reedy
Gerrit Holl
> " Every political choice ultimately reduces to a choice about when and
> how to use lethal force, because the threat of lethal force is what
> makes politics and law more than a game out of which anyone could opt
> at any time."
>
Yes.
Maybe a government needs to use violence to enforce people getting
into prison if they refuse to obey the law. But a prison is not
lethal (at least, not in civilized regions like those in Europe
and some parts of the USA).
If a community decides to build a road, it has nothing to do with
lethal force. Nor does it to strengthen the dikes, or cut taxes,
or even create more strict gun laws. This statement by ESR is
absolute nonsense.
> Or are you one who doesn't the 'people' to notice the
> elitist hypocrisy of being 'anti-gun' while supporting the bearing
> *and use* of guns by 'govern-men' the elitists hope to control?
I am against all violence. But because we don't live in Utopia, the
government sometimes needs to use violence to enforce the law. The
difference is that, in civilized countries, the law is (mostly)
democratic and (for a large part) fair. Government violence is
something absolutely different from person-violence (I don't know
how "eigen rechter spelen" is called in English).
> (I think it safe to say that during the 20th century, 99% of the 100s of
> millions of murders were committed by armed govern-men rather than by
> private persons acting alone.)
That is probably true. But do you seriously think that the Dutch, Swiss,
American or Japanese government can be compared with those of Hitler, Stalin,
Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Kim Jong Il, etc.? Weapons in hands of idiots can
cause dozens of deaths. Power in hands of idiots can cause millions of deaths.
Does the latter mean the former isn't true?
Gerrit (socialist).
--
168. If a man wish to put his son out of his house, and declare before
the judge: "I want to put my son out," then the judge shall examine into
his reasons. If the son be guilty of no great fault, for which he can be
rightfully put out, the father shall not put him out.
Andrew Dalke
> Given a population of 4 billion (roughly, over the century) and assuming
> the US rate is average for the world, that's
>
> >>> 4000000000 / 100000. * 9.2
> 368000.0
> >>>
>
> or roughly 0.5% of the deaths attributed to murders in the cause of
> war. Roughly in line with Terry's claims.
Oops! That's *per* *year*. Multiply by 100 to get the number
of homicides in a century == 37 million.
Andrew
da...@dalkescientific.com
Peter Hansen
>
> Terry Reedy wrote:
> > " Every political choice ultimately reduces to a choice about when and
> > how to use lethal force, because the threat of lethal force is what
> > makes politics and law more than a game out of which anyone could opt
> > at any time."
> >
> > Do you disagree?
>
> Yes.
>
> Maybe a government needs to use violence to enforce people getting
> into prison if they refuse to obey the law. But a prison is not
> lethal (at least, not in civilized regions like those in Europe
> and some parts of the USA).
But if you refuse to go to prison, things get lethal pretty quickly.
That's what "ultimately" refers to above.
> If a community decides to build a road, it has nothing to do with
> lethal force. Nor does it to strengthen the dikes, or cut taxes,
> or even create more strict gun laws. This statement by ESR is
> absolute nonsense.
I thought about that statement carefully when I read it, and at first
it does sound ludicrous. Imagine, however, (using the law part of that
statement and leaving the politics part out for now) that you received
a speeding ticket, but decided to "opt out" of any negative effects
because of it. Can't you see how short a path it is from there to
an armed standoff with police (inevitably resulting their application
of lethal force), if you ultimately insisted on avoiding *any* negative
effect from that speeding ticket? If you didn't pay, refused to show
up in court, attempted to prevent anyone from garnisheeing your wages,
and so forth? I think the key word in the above is "ultimately", and
I can see why ESR would (I think validly) state what he did above.
-Peter
Gerrit Holl
In a (post-)(civil-)war situation, the difference between homocide
and war can be extremely vague, so this number may me much higher (and/or
the number of war deaths lower). Not every death is classifyable.
Gerrit.
--
215. If a physician make a large incision with an operating knife and
cure it, or if he open a tumor (over the eye) with an operating knife, and
saves the eye, he shall receive ten shekels in money.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|US homicide rates are 9.2 +/- 1.0 per 100,000 claims
|the US rate is average for the world, that's
|>>> 4000000000 / 100000. * 9.2
That homicide rate is a yearly rate. If you want to find out how many
murders in a century, you'd need to multiply by 100.
Of course, in reality, the homicide rate is much lower outside of the
USA, so the base rate isn't good for extrapolation. Of course, the
dominant reason the homicide rate is lower outside the USA is because
most places don't have so damn many handguns.
Yours, Lulu...
--
---[ to our friends at TLAs (spread the word) ]--------------------------
Echelon North Korea Nazi cracking spy smuggle Columbia fissionable Stego
White Water strategic Clinton Delta Force militia TEMPEST Libya Mossad
---[ Postmodern Enterprises <me...@gnosis.cx> ]--------------------------
Paul D. Fernhout
> [Lots of good advice snipped]
Wow, this is really good advice on becoming a decent human being! I
could not have put it as well or succinctly. This is much better advice
for someone finishing high school soon than on any specific technical
direction. It reminds me a bit of Robert Heinlein's quotation: "A human
being should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a
hog, design a building, conn a ship, write a sonnet, balance accounts,
build a wall, set a bone, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders,
cooperate, act alone, solve an equation, analyze a new problem, pitch
manure, program a computer, cook a tasty meal, fight efficiently, die
gallantly. Specialization is for insects".
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=specialization%20is%20for%20insects
We live in a beautiful and mysterious world -- seemingly infinite in
time and space and meaning, perhaps with multiple nested levels beyond
our current understanding (individual or collective). Stan's advice
touches on how to come to grips with these deeper issues indirectly by
engaging deeply in the human experience through the ways he outlines
(volunteering, compassion, art, dance, music, frugality, etc.) to grow
some deep roots to rely on when branching out into a specialization like
computer science or Python internals.
One good resource in the area towards career understanding is Richard
Bolles "What Color is Your Parachute".
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1580082424/103-2338008-0446217?v=glance
and his related books on Life/Work planning.
Still, I might add, from a technical side, become aware of Moore's Law
if you want to try to predict where the computer field is going to go
over the course of your career. Computers have increased in computing
capacity for a constant cost on the order of close to one million times
over the last thirty or so years. In the next twenty years or so they
will probably again increase by a factor of about another million from
where they are now.
http://www.transhumanist.com/volume1/moravec.htm
Ever more sophisticated virtual reality simulations and robotics (e.g.
cars that drive themselves just for one application) will be just a few
of the sorts of possibilities this kind of computing power will enable,
as well as all sorts of things we can barely imagine now. Cars can even
drive themselves now using laptops, but they will be presumably even
safer and more capable then...
http://www.ri.cmu.edu/labs/lab_28.html
On Moore's Law and exponential growth see for example:
http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1
Moore's Law type growth is one reason sophisticated languages like
Python are now succesful (over using all C/C++ all the time) and may be
ever more succesful as time goes by. As a corollary, today's level of
desktop computing may well cost one-millionth of what it does in twenty
years, and so may be effectively free (well, a penny) and so may be
embedded everywhere (so studying embedded sytems might be useful, and
for example, learning the computer language Forth might be relevant).
Also, to elaborate on Stan's suggestion to study literature, read lots
of things (including, but not limited to, science fiction). For one
optimistic view of the future, see James P. Hogan's writings, especially
"Voyage from Yesteryear".
http://www.jamesphogan.com/books/voyage/baen99/titlepage.shtml
I always return to that novel and his other writings as a way to regain
some hope for the future. And for a cyberpunkish vision, try "The
Diamond Age" by Neal Stephenson.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0553380966/102-9187646-8303318?v=glance
But don't skimp on other classics, from "The Machine Stops" to "The
Skills of Xanadu".
It's quite possible in twenty years that much of your work in computing
may be almost inseperable from nanotechnology matter replicator
programming (i.e. your programs might compile to the hardware).
Self-replicating space habitats made easy by related technological
advances in computing and materials fabrication may then well produce
trillions of Earth's worths of living space around our solar system.
http://www.luf.org/
Those sort of possibilities realizeable through dedication and
commitment of young people like yourself (as well as oldsters :-) make
all this current fighting over oil and water and land and weapons all
seem so childish and outmoded as a civilization... Hogan's vision of a
universe of plenty if we can just cooperate and show compassion and try
to avoid living in fear is a good one to embrace. Choices by millions of
people such as yourself will shape whether and how much and for whom the
future heads in this direction.
On the science front, read anything by Freeman Dyson (like "Disturbing
the Universe") because he is a very decent human being as well as
citizen-scientist. And of course, read more broadly than that --
biographies, "Harry Potter", history, and so on. Two useful historians
to read include:
"A People's History of the United States"
http://www.howardzinn.org/
and "Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook
Got Wrong"
http://www.uvm.edu/~jloewen/
The concepts in these books may well shape the US political spectrum in
the next couple of decades, and our technosphere may well then be
reconstructed to reflect these changing social values. See also,
"Autonomous Technology: Technics-out-of-Control as a Theme in Political
Thought" as it grapples directly with this issue of technological
development reflecting social values (it's kind of dry, but some of his
other writings may be more accessible).
http://www.rpi.edu/~winner/
A computer language like Python (as opposed to C++) in a way reflects a
different mindset about accessability and changeability (see Guido's
"Computer Programming for Everybody")
http://www.python.org/doc/essays/ppt/acm-cp4e/
in the same way that local solar panels or home biomass fuel cells or
better home insulation alter the political power landscape as opposed to
large centralized nuclear or coal power plants or oil tankers. Always be
aware that the technological systems you build reflect your values. It's
kind of not a surprise to me that Python came from the Netherlands
(progressive social system) or Smalltalk from sort-of-hippies in
California :-) or GNU/Linux from Finland (well, OK, and RMS/GNU in
Boston post-MIT, which sort of wrecks that analogy :-).
And beware the PhD pyramid scheme. See a comment by the Vice Provost of
Caltech on the state of science jobs today as testimony to Congress:
http://www.house.gov/science/goodstein_04-01.htm
In short, Prof. Goodstein says because of this focus on the PhD in US
science, much US education and educators down to the high school level
are somewhat inadequate to the task of imparting useful skills for other
than those heading to do the most elite abstract research, unlike say
the technical education available in some of Europe.
An excerpt from that page: "The problem, to reiterate, is that science
education in America is designed to select a small group of elite
scientists. An unintended but inevitable side effect is that everyone
else is left out. As a consequence of that, 20,000 American high schools
lack a single qualified physics teacher, half the math classes in
American schools are taught by people who lack the qualifications to
teach them, and companies will increasingly find themselves without the
technical competence they need at all levels from the shop floor to the
executive suite. To solve this problem will take nothing less than a
reform of both education and society. We must have as our goal a nation
in which solid scientific education will form the basis of realistic
career opportunities at all levels, in industry, government and in
education itself, from kindergarten to graduate school. As long as we
train a tiny scientific elite that cares not at all about anyone else,
and everyone else wears ignorance of science and mathematics as a badge
of honor, we are putting our future as a nation and as a culture in deep
peril."
I'm not saying don't get a CS PhD someday down the road to realize a
dream of becoming a computer scientist if that is what you want
(although please understand the difference between a software developer
and a mathematician who studies algorithms and how that relates to the
courses you take and universities you choose to attend) -- just
understand what you are getting yourself into and how that PhD system
has distorted science and technical education in the US at present (and
that link above explains why in some detail).
Also, on the issue of volunteerism Stan raise, contributing early and
often to various open source / free software projects that are of
interest to you (such as contributing to Python) is a way to both gain
visibility in the computer world as well as to leave a meaningful legacy
behind no matter where your career and life takes you. Obviously, get
your parent(s)'s or guardian's permission first if legally or morally
needed.
All the best.
--Paul Fernhout
http://www.pointrel.org
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Gerrit Holl
> But if you refuse to go to prison, things get lethal pretty quickly.
> That's what "ultimately" refers to above.
Well, I don't think they get very lethal, they get painful at most.
> I think the key word in the above is "ultimately", and
> I can see why ESR would (I think validly) state what he did above.
Ultimately, the state will use violence. But this violence should not
have lethal consequences.
If 'lethal' would be replaced by 'using violence', this statement is
reasonable for some sorts of government decisions, but only for those
involving law (e.g. not involving building roads (however, roads *can*
be quite lethal ;)).
Gerrit.
--
156. If a man betroth a girl to his son, but his son has not known her,
and if then he defile her, he shall pay her half a gold mina, and
compensate her for all that she brought out of her father's house. She may
marry the man of her heart.
Geoff Gerrietts
> Peter Hansen wrote:
> > But if you refuse to go to prison, things get lethal pretty quickly.
> > That's what "ultimately" refers to above.
>
It depends on the case. Several times in recent history, the American
FBI has deployed lethal force when it was insufficiently provoked
(Ruby Ridge, Waco).
> > I think the key word in the above is "ultimately", and
> > I can see why ESR would (I think validly) state what he did above.
>
> Ultimately, the state will use violence. But this violence should not
> have lethal consequences.
>
> If 'lethal' would be replaced by 'using violence', this statement is
> reasonable for some sorts of government decisions, but only for those
> involving law (e.g. not involving building roads (however, roads *can*
> be quite lethal ;)).
Government derives its power initially from its control over the death
of its subjects, from its ability to inflict death upon its subjects.
Sometime in the last 500 years -- I want to say the 18th century? --
this evolved. While most governments do still have the authority to
kill one of their subjects, governmental authority is more usually
asserted in increased measures of control over the subject's lives.
This control is based on the underlying principle that the governing
body has access to overwhelming physical force.
For a fascinating and horrifying read on this topic, I heartily
recommend Michel Foucault's _Discipline and Punish_, a discussion of
the evolution of police forces and the prison, and the ramifications
that has for governmental power.
I don't mean to suggest support for either side of the argument here;
I'm not sure exactly where I stand. I think an awful lot of things are
being assumed, and many more are being oversimplified, all to support
positions which are, at base, emotional.
--G.
--
Geoff Gerrietts "If programming langauges were porn,
<geoff at gerrietts net> Java would be bukkake."
http://www.gerrietts.net --Dan Dillinger
Bob Gailer
>[snip]
OK; I'll bite. Why do you quote from Hammurabi, Code of Law?
>156. If a man betroth a girl to his son, but his son has not known her,
>and if then he defile her, he shall pay her half a gold mina, and
>compensate her for all that she brought out of her father's house. She may
>marry the man of her heart.
> -- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law
Bob Gailer
bga...@alum.rpi.edu
303 442 2625
Andrew Dalke
> Of course, in reality, the homicide rate is much lower outside of the
> USA, so the base rate isn't good for extrapolation.
I thought of that when I looked up that number. But the
comparison stats I know of are for Europe. I remember in 'Guns,
Germs, and Steel', in the foreword the author points out that
the homicide rate in New Guinea was quite high, pointing out
he knew a woman whose first husband was killed by the man
who became her second husband. He goes on to state that
when two people first met, one of the things they did was to
figure out how they were related, because if they weren't
then the odds of murder was higher. (Can't find my borrowed
copy of the book, so regard the above as a rough summary.)
And I didn't want to do the legwork to find more precise
numbers.
Andrew
da...@dalkescientific.com
Peter Hansen
>
> Peter Hansen wrote:
> > But if you refuse to go to prison, things get lethal pretty quickly.
> > That's what "ultimately" refers to above.
>
> Well, I don't think they get very lethal, they get painful at most.
>
> > I think the key word in the above is "ultimately", and
> > I can see why ESR would (I think validly) state what he did above.
>
> Ultimately, the state will use violence. But this violence should not
> have lethal consequences.
No, you're not taking the word "ultimately" far enough. First the state
tries to get painful on your ass, so you resist. Then they get really
violent, and still you resist. Picture the nature of this resistance,
which usually would have to involve standing up to armed police by
this point. Now tell me how, you plan to avoid *ultimately* getting to
the lethal stage, without giving in first.
-Peter
Arthur
]
>ESR's "arguments" boil down to: (1) Wow, isn't it fun hearing guns make
>a loud bang; (2) Oh yeah, be careful not to point them at people by
>accident; (3) This bunch of invented history kinda-sorta supports my
>nutsiness, if you squint and don't think about it too hard; (4) Did I
>mention that I like to hear loud bangs?
Eric Raymeond at http://armedndangerous.blogspot.com/
""There are some books so bad, but so plausible and influential, that
periodically trashing them in public is almost an obligation. The really
classic stinkeroos of this kind, like Karl Marx's Das Kapital, exert a weird
kind of seduction on otherwise intelligent people long after their factual
basis has been completely exploded."""
I gotta go with with Eric on this.
Lulu can correct me if I am wrong, but links from Lulu's site has led me to
understand him to be an avowed "otherwise intelligent person".
We all knew this kind of discussion would lead to no good. Even to my own
eventual involvment. But the rule I had set to myself, would be to comment
only upon Lulu's comment, and only if that comment was something other than
to the effect that one's politics might be irrelevent here, and that the
advice to a new programmer to eschew Raymond because of his was .. bad
advice.
That being *my* comment.
Art
Asun Friere
> January 1, 1900 and ending on or one year before December 31, 2000)?
>
matter of endless debate, but a debate which is WAY more fun than the
gun debate! :P
Asun Friere
> ... I
> think it safe to say that during the 20th century, 99% of the 100s of
> millions of murders were committed by armed govern-men rather than by
> private persons acting alone.
For which reason it is absolutely essential to have an armed civilian
population so they can even the score up a little bit in this century.
Terry Reedy
"Gerrit Holl" <ger...@nl.linux.org> wrote in message
news:mailman.1062010433...@python.org...
> Terry Reedy wrote:
> > " Every political choice ultimately reduces to a choice about when
and
> > how to use lethal force, because the threat of lethal force is
what
> > makes politics and law more than a game out of which anyone could
opt
> > at any time."
> >
> > Do you disagree?
>
> Yes.
I knew someone would ;-)
I'll just note that George Washington has been quoted as saying
something nearly identical about the time he retired.
Back to my understanding of what started this subthread and my concern
thereof. Budding CS student A asks for advice about going into CS.
Person B suggests that A read various CS-related writings by CS
celebrities, including C. Poster D says something like 'No, Don't
read C' because he has written 'dangerous' stuff on other topics
(disconnected from CS). Quite aside from my disagreement about the
'dangerous' characterization, is the boycott suggestion sensible and
legitimate, or just flamebait?
Let's consider celebrity K(nuth). I believe he has written something
on a somewhat different non-CS topic (religion ). Suppose I were to
read it (I have not as yet) and view it as 'dangerous nonsense'.
Would that justify me suggesting to A, on this newsgroup, that he not
read K's CS writings?
Terry J. Reedy
Tom Plunket
> I have heard a whole lot about the fact that the market for
> software engineers nowadays is *HORRIBLE*...
You could go to work in the video game industry. Like most
entertainment industries it fares pretty well especially when
there's a downturn in society.
I've been a video game programmer for seven years. It's a lot of
work and not a lot of money, but it feels cool to me to work on
the programs that people use *after* work. ;) We make the
software that people choose to use individually.
> I would be devastated were I to find the need to leave computer
> science.
There will always be a call for programmers. The key to securing
yourself in whatever position you want to be in is simply to be
better than everyone else around you at that role. Study hard,
go after internships while in college (or even before, I recently
had a 16-year old intern in programming who was hot-shit), and
absorb everything you can.
Learn Python, learn C++, learn Lisp. Understand what you like
and don't like about each of these languages.
Good luck,
-tom!
--
There's really no reason to send a copy of your
followup to my email address, so please don't.
Tom Plunket
> Except when it comes to guns - despite all the evidence that
> the ready availability of firearms to the general population
> Results in huge numbers of avoidable homicides, suicides, injuries,
> incarceration and general mayhem...
Ironically the states with the loosest gun laws also have the
least crime.
Remember that automobiles kill something like 100x the number of
people in the US every year over guns.
Geoff Gerrietts
> (disconnected from CS). Quite aside from my disagreement about the
> 'dangerous' characterization, is the boycott suggestion sensible and
> legitimate, or just flamebait?
I think you could fairly consider that flamebait, if the situation
were as you characterized it. This situation is specifically when a
given author writes scholarship -- or invective, whatever -- into two
totally separate and readily distinguishable fields.
The key in my mind is distinguishable. You can draw the line between
Knuth's CS writings and religious writings. In some cases, it's more
challenging: polemic and scholarship blend freely within articles that
waver between analytic description and propaganda.
I don't think it makes sense to avoid (say) ESR entirely; I do think
that his work should be approached with some care and some capacity
for critical analysis. It usually takes a year or two of college
(often more!) for a student to acquire enough domain-specific
knowledge to be able to evaluate a text and sort opinion from fact.
As such, some writers (particularly the sort who love to speculate on
fields they have no training in, or who get sloppy with their facts)
are best left for when you can tell when they're talking out their
ass, and when they actually know what they're talking about. Maybe ESR
belongs to this category of writer?
--G.
--
Geoff Gerrietts "Don't get suckered in by the comments--
<geoff at gerrietts net> they can be terribly misleading.
www.gerrietts.net/geoff/ Debug only code." --Dave Storer
Chad Netzer
> Ironically the states with the loosest gun laws also have the
> least crime.
Perhaps that is because the states with the least crime need the least
stringent gun laws. :)
> Remember that automobiles kill something like 100x the number of
> people in the US every year over guns.
You know, instead of making things up, we can use the web these days.
According to the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control:
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/wisqars/default.htm
In 2000, there were 43,604 automobile related deaths in the U.S.
In 2000, there were 28,663 firearm related deaths in the U.S.
BTW. That gun death figure is down from years before; usually it is
above 30,000. Perhaps it was the strong economy (my opinion), or
perhaps it was due to tougher gun laws (both state and federal).
See http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html to check for
yourself.
For more automobile data, see FARS:
http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/fars.html
Also, apparently over half of the gun deaths are suicides.
http://www.ichv.org/suicideandguns.htm
And, about 40% of automobile accident deaths are 'alcohol related'.
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/drving.htm
So, your figure of 100x is ridiculous on the face of it, and does not
stand up to even minimal fact checking.
--
Chad Netzer <cne...@sonic.net>
Gerrit Holl
> Back to my understanding of what started this subthread and my concern
> thereof. Budding CS student A asks for advice about going into CS.
> Person B suggests that A read various CS-related writings by CS
> celebrities, including C. Poster D says something like 'No, Don't
> read C' because he has written 'dangerous' stuff on other topics
> (disconnected from CS). Quite aside from my disagreement about the
> 'dangerous' characterization, is the boycott suggestion sensible and
> legitimate, or just flamebait?
I am not sure. I have read the Cathedral but didn't know about ESR's
gun statements then. I don't think it is a big problem, objectively.
I would find it difficult in more extreme cases however: e.g., I would
not read a work from Hitler in 1920 about musquitoes.
Elsewhere in this thread, Marx in mentioned. In western Europe, a lot of
intelligent people exist who have earlier (mostly in their student period)
read and sometimes even written prose which could not be classified as
very thoughful (e.g., about Stalin, Mao). This is comparable: "A has
written B so C, written by A, is dangerous". However, the differenc is,
that in this case (Dutch politicians (Marijnissen and others), Dutch
writers (van Zomeren, van Loon, and others), they have all withdrawn
their previous statements.
> Let's consider celebrity K(nuth). I believe he has written something
> on a somewhat different non-CS topic (religion ). Suppose I were to
> read it (I have not as yet) and view it as 'dangerous nonsense'.
> Would that justify me suggesting to A, on this newsgroup, that he not
> read K's CS writings?
No; reading Newton is also perfectly valid.
Gerrit.
--
100. ... interest for the money, as much as he has received, he shall
give a note therefor, and on the day, when they settle, pay to the
merchant.
Gerrit Holl
OK; but the last lethal stage is reached *only* if the civilian involved
*also* defends himself with the same means as the government. So, things
will get lethal ulmitately *only* if the civilian owns the same arms as
the government. Consequently, ESR's statement is only applicable to the
situation he promotes.
If I resist and keep resisting using only my fists or even a knife, the
Dutch police will be able to take me to prison without killing me. A
qualified police force should even be able to do this even when I am
using a gun, but does not always succeed in this.
Gerrit.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|Ironically the states with the loosest gun laws also have the
|least crime.
Almost exactly opposite to the truth. Check the FBI uniform crime
statistics. Although the pattern is not 100% reliable, there is a
strong correlation between lax gun laws and gun-related deaths.
|Remember that automobiles kill something like 100x the number of
|people in the US every year over guns.
USA automobile deaths are ^43k/year
USA gun-related deaths are ~29k/year
The first number is bigger, yes.... but nothing at all like 100x as
large.
Pulling facts out of thin air (or equivalently, our of NRA leaflets or
ESR's writing) is unpersuasive.
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|state tries to get painful on your ass, so you resist. Then they get
|really violent, and still you resist.
Just as a question of biology, a person can be locked in handcuffs, or
in a metal cage, and be neither dead nor have the power to kill others.
This limit comes not out of the compromise and will-power of the
detained person, but simply out of physics and anatomy. In most
"ultimate" cases of state-sponsored violence, this is what happens...
not someone being killed.
Someone upthread recommended Foucault... I strongly second reading his
looks at "technologies of control."
Yours, Lulu...
--
mertz@ | The specter of free information is haunting the `Net! All the
gnosis | powers of IP- and crypto-tyranny have entered into an unholy
.cx | alliance...ideas have nothing to lose but their chains. Unite
| against "intellectual property" and anti-privacy regimes!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|""There are some books so bad, but so plausible and influential, that
|periodically trashing them in public is almost an obligation. The really
|classic stinkeroos of this kind, like Karl Marx's Das Kapital
|Lulu can correct me if I am wrong, but links from Lulu's site has led
|me to understand him to be an avowed "otherwise intelligent person".
I make no such avowal. I just post missives from the land of the
lotus-eaters. And I sometimes find my ideas in everyones' heads[*]
That said, I'm probably one of fairly few list contributors who owns the
complete standard edition of Marx and Engels' writings (except an
unfortunate gap at 1857, and in some of the letters)... and who has read
a substantial chunk of it.[**] I imagine ESR has not so read.
|advice to a new programmer to eschew Raymond...
I would certainly never urge anyone to eschew reading ESRs essays. I
would urge them to find the essays a little bit silly--this applies as
much, actually, to the "Homesteading" and "Cathedral" essays as to the
gun-nut stuff.
But then, Raymond is a bit of an amateur in the areas I studied as a
profession (political philosophy, economics, sociology, etc). I'd
certainly give him high marks in one of my erstwhile classes.
Nonetheless, I sure wouldn't want his job as "Official ideologue of Open
Source"... it's way too much work. And he writes mostly true things,
even if for the wrong reasons.
Yours, Lulu...
[*] Who the heck put the 'post' in post-Situ?! OK, I protest too much,
since I know it was a delightful writer named Hakim Bey, whom I saw
speak a couple weeks back (after reading his books some years earlier).
[**] Although I confess I never quite made it through Volume Three, I
know some certain persons who have.... and discovered that my own little
village (literally) in Western Massachusetts, called Turners Falls
(after a local mass murderer of the prior locals), appeared by name in a
nice turn of phrase about cutlery.
--
_/_/_/ THIS MESSAGE WAS BROUGHT TO YOU BY: Postmodern Enterprises _/_/_/
_/_/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~[me...@gnosis.cx]~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ _/_/
_/_/ The opinions expressed here must be those of my employer... _/_/
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/ Surely you don't think that *I* believe them! _/_/
Asun Friere
> ""There are some books so bad, but so plausible and influential, that
> periodically trashing them in public is almost an obligation. The really
> classic stinkeroos of this kind, like Karl Marx's Das Kapital, exert a weird
> kind of seduction on otherwise intelligent people long after their factual
> basis has been completely exploded."""
>
> I gotta go with with Eric on this.
>
volumes? I'm impressed! I'm certain no "otherwise intelligent
people" would "periodically [thrash]" a book they haven't read, would
they?
Michele Simionato
>
> One learns so much more from reading opinions opposed to one's own,
> than from reading ones with which you agree.
I thought it was worth repeating.
Michele Simionato, Ph. D.
MicheleS...@libero.it
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~micheles
--- Currently looking for a job ---
Jacek Generowicz
> (I don't know how "eigen rechter spelen" is called in English).
"Taking the law into your own hands."
Gerrit Holl
> > > That's what "ultimately" refers to above.
> >
>
> FBI has deployed lethal force when it was insufficiently provoked
> (Ruby Ridge, Waco).
"Several times in (American) history" is, of course, not the same as
"every dicision", "ultimately".
Gerrit Holl.
--
46. If he do not receive a fixed rental for his field, but lets it on
half or third shares of the harvest, the grain on the field shall be
divided proportionately between the tiller and the owner.
-- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law
Paul Boddie
> Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters:
> > Of course, in reality, the homicide rate is much lower outside of the
> > USA, so the base rate isn't good for extrapolation.
>
> I thought of that when I looked up that number. But the
> comparison stats I know of are for Europe. I remember in 'Guns,
> Germs, and Steel', in the foreword the author points out that
> the homicide rate in New Guinea was quite high, pointing out
> he knew a woman whose first husband was killed by the man
> who became her second husband.
A great book, that one, with some very interesting discussions on
dynamics within and between societies, and the relative importance of
technology in all of these things. Interestingly, if I recall
correctly, the author mentions the introduction of firearms in New
Zealand and the subsequent "musket wars", contrasting this with the
disapproval of firearms over a long period in Japan.
Again, I'd recommend that people spend their time doing a bit of
background reading (and viewing - the homicide rate discrepancy is
also covered in "Bowling for Columbine") rather than pushing their
agenda on a programming language newsgroup because they probably
couldn't cut it on a newsgroup actually dedicated to such discussions.
Paul
P.S. And the reason why many people find ESR to be offensive or just
plain inappropriate is that one gets the feeling that he wants you to
buy into his whole agenda, whether or not that involves running around
with a firearm in the woods dressed as Obi-Wan or Yoda.
Colin J. Williams
> "Tim Churches" <tc...@optushome.com.au> writes:
>
>
>>Cameron Laird wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I ask in part because, as near as I can tell, you were the
>>>first to mention him in this thread. It appears that you
>>>regard his output as particularly hazardous.
>>
>>See the first few paragraphs of
>>http://www.catb.org/~esr/guns/gun-ethics.html
>
>
> I did. 'Few' means at least three. The second and last sentence of
> the third paragraph reads
>
> " Every political choice ultimately reduces to a choice about when and
> how to use lethal force, because the threat of lethal force is what
> makes politics and law more than a game out of which anyone could opt
> at any time."
>
> statement)? Or are you one who doesn't the 'people' to notice the
> elitist hypocrisy of being 'anti-gun' while supporting the bearing
> *and use* of guns by 'govern-men' the elitists hope to control? (I
> think it safe to say that during the 20th century, 99% of the 100s of
> millions of murders were committed by armed govern-men rather than by
>
> Well back to Python.
>
> Terry J. Reedy
We seem to be straying from Python and/or advice to a your person, but
the third paragraph is clearly nonsense.
To give an example. In Canada, over the next year or more, the Members
of Parliament and the Senators will have to make a choice as to whether
gay marriage is to continue in this country. No threat of force exists.
A decision will be made and the populace will accept it as being more or
less democratic.
Colin W.
Gerrit Holl
> At 10:12 PM 8/27/2003 +0200, Gerrit Holl wrote:
> >[snip]
>
> OK; I'll bite. Why do you quote from Hammurabi, Code of Law?
Heh; it is always in my signature. It has absolutely nothing to
do with this discussion; I don't even notice what's in it
exactly...
Gerrit.
--
263. If he kill the cattle or sheep that were given to him, he shall
compensate the owner with cattle for cattle and sheep for sheep.
Alex Martelli
...
>> " Every political choice ultimately reduces to a choice about when and
>> how to use lethal force, because the threat of lethal force is what
>> makes politics and law more than a game out of which anyone could opt
>> at any time."
> We seem to be straying from Python and/or advice to a your person, but
> the third paragraph is clearly nonsense.
Not necessarily. I suggest going to essayists on a similar theme that
are of a lesser "polemist" inclination and more of a "deep thinker" one,
such as Economics Nobel prize-winner Friedrich von Hayek: I think he
makes one of the best presentations of the classic theme of government
being about instituting a commonly agreed "monopoly of violence" and all
that follows from it. Hobbes was the first (IMHO) to state this out
clearly in modern times (although for contemporary readers this more
general theme may be made harder to see by Hobbes' defence of the
specific political form "Absolutism" as THE way to achieve this), and
you can also find some tangential treatments in (e.g.) Betham and
John Stuart Mills (as well as in thinkers of a completely different
stripe such as Friedrich Engels and Mao Tse Tung), but I think Hayek
has the most lucid, "neutral" presentation.
Of course making this argument about POLITICS rather than about
GOVERNMENT does require restricting the meaning of "politics" quite
specifically (and etymologically) -- "office politics" isn't about
government, nor is (e.g.) the kind of organizational politics that
may take you to the top of volunteer organizations such as a
charity or a bocce club. But if by politics we mean, strictly,
politics connected with determining government and laws, then the
point is well made, if deep.
To see it clearly you have to reason about, what does it mean that
something is LAW rather than just a convention, common sense, or
good manners. The difference is that, if it's law, then, ultimately,
breaking it carries an implicit threat of potentilaly lethal force
(in most cases through stages, e.g. you could first be fined, then
if you refuse to pay your fines they could try to take away your
possessions such as a car, if you defend your car they'll try to
stick you in jail, if you resist arrest effectively enough you may
end up being shot in the resulting firefight).
For example, consider the following issue:
> To give an example. In Canada, over the next year or more, the Members
> of Parliament and the Senators will have to make a choice as to whether
> gay marriage is to continue in this country. No threat of force exists.
> A decision will be made and the populace will accept it as being more or
> less democratic.
What does it mean for the government to say that the union of two men
can (or cannot) legally be "marriage" rather than "just a de facto
union"? It means such a union confers rights and therefore obligations
on various parties and that the government implicitly threatens all of
its usual levels of reprisal (ultimately backed by its hoped-for
monopoly in organized use of lethal force) against violators of the law.
Say that A and B are [a] married or [b] just de facto "together". A
lies dying in a hospital and B wants to visit A on hir deathbed. In
case [a] the government forces the hospital to admit B; in case [b]
there is no such obligation and most hospitals will in fact not admit
visitors that are unrelated to the patient into some sections in which
close relatives (including spouses) WOULD be admitted (wiht all due
precautions, of course). So, in case [a] (legal marriage), B can get
a court order if the hospital staff blocks B's entry, and if the hospital
does not respect the court order in the end police will enforce it...
all the way to threat or even use of legal force if necessary.
If a law is not mere words, with no pragmatical side to them, it must
eventually rest on that same implied promise (to the holders of rights
conferred by the law) and threat (to the holders of obligations imposed
by the law, were they to persistently flout and resist the obligations).
Of course, if Hayek is correct, then saying that we do NOT want the
government to have the monopoly of lethal force is exactly equivalent
to saying we do not want effective government (Hobbes would surely
argue that way) -- we prefer deliberately-hobbled government to
government that is maximally effective. In this day and age it's hard
to make a case for deliberately inefficient arrangements, although it
IS possible to do so (e.g., the mandatory trailing ':' in the head
clauses of several Python statements;-). People who don't want ID
cards to exist, don't want government DB's to be cross-linked, etc,
plead much the same case -- they prefer inefficient government (whose
inefficiencies may help terrorists and other criminals) to efficient
government (whose efficiency might allow more effective oppression).
Alex
Peter Hansen
I knew you were out there, which is why I said "roughly". ;-)
-Peter
Peter Hansen
>
> OK; but the last lethal stage is reached *only* if the civilian involved
> *also* defends himself with the same means as the government. So, things
> will get lethal ulmitately *only* if the civilian owns the same arms as
> the government. Consequently, ESR's statement is only applicable to the
> situation he promotes.
>
> If I resist and keep resisting using only my fists or even a knife, the
> Dutch police will be able to take me to prison without killing me. A
> qualified police force should even be able to do this even when I am
> using a gun, but does not always succeed in this.
You just aren't cut out for this resistance stuff, are you? ;-)
If I had a knife, I'd grab the nearest bystander (one of those types
who hasn't chosen to opt out with me, and is therefore not "innocent" ;-)
and I'd hold him or her hostage. After a while, the state would get
tired of this and just shoot me.
Lulu talks about biological and physical restrictions, but also ignores
the process needed to *get me into those handcuffs* in the first place.
I could be pretty imaginative in finding ways to avoid that, which did
not involve a gun, if you insisted.
But at this point the discussion quickly degrades, because my sole
point was that ESR used the word "ultimately" for a good reason, to
try to communicate to his audience a link between personal choice with
respect to laws and such, and lethal force. I accept his point as
made, even if I agree more with you guys that generally speaking it's
a bit of a reach.
-Peter
Roy Smith
> Learn Python, learn C++, learn Lisp. Understand what you like
> and don't like about each of these languages.
The most imporant thing you can learn in school is how to learn.
Especially in a fast-moving technology field, most of the cutting-edge
stuff you learn in school is going to be routine in 5 years and obsolete
in 10.
Languages come and go. Operating systems come and go. Programming
methodologies come and go (flowcharts and coding grids were the range
when I got into programming). The constant is knowing how to think and
how to learn. In school, people decide what you need to know and
spoon-feed it to you. In the real world, you'll need to be able to look
around, figure out for yourself what's important, and teach it to
yourself.
Alex Martelli
Dunno 'bout Arthur, but I did read "Il Capitale" (in Italian
translation, by Editori Riuniti) -- that was over 30 years ago,
when I was a left-wing firebrand (but definitely an egghead
rather than a man of action). None of my comrades had ever
gotten close, of course (it's a VERY heavy, ponderously written
book: K. Marx would never have managed to popularize his ideas
without the help of that _excellent_ writer, F. Engels). One
of the few people I knew who HAD was my teacher of history and
philosophy (I was in high school at the time, of course), a
member in good standing of the Communist Party (quite legal in
Italy, indeed at the time the second-largest party in the country
with about 30% of the vote -- I was far to the left of the staid
and traditional Party, of course) -- she challenged me, claiming
that having read Marx was worth nothing unless I had an equally
good grounding on his forebears and intellectual adversaries. So
I started on Adam Smith (wonderful writer), Ricardo (almost as
ponderous as Marx), etc, etc, and eventually left Marxism (I guess
in some sense it was an issue of growing up).
But I challenge the claim that "the factual basis" of Das Kapital
has been "completely exploded", any more than that of the far
more accessible and pleasant-to-read "Wealth of Nations". Sure,
quite a few of Smith's analyses (and of Marx's) have been proven
to be incomplete or incorrect -- e.g., Ricardo does a great job
on Smith, even though he does admire and accept him as a starting
point, by meticulously proving the concept of "rent" as being
determined by the least-productive land in use, a concept that
Smith had not conceived and whose lack undermines quite a few of
his detailed analyses (as I recall, and it HAS been over 30 years,
Marx's treatment of rent is also pretty weak, though perhaps not
quite as weak as Smith's, but with less justification since Marx
DID know of Ricardo's analysis and never critiques it in what I
find a convincing manner -- strange, because even accepting the
whole of Ricardo's treatment on this is quite peripheral to Marx's
central purposes and would not undermine them in any way). But
anyway, I still find a LOT that is part of the "factual basis" of
both "The Wealth of Nations" and "The Capital" to be un-exploded
and quite helpful as a starting point for my own idiosyncratical
analyses of economical and politico-economical issues.
Alex
A.M. Kuchling
> P.S. And the reason why many people find ESR to be offensive or just
> plain inappropriate is that one gets the feeling that he wants you to
> buy into his whole agenda, whether or not that involves running around
> with a firearm in the woods dressed as Obi-Wan or Yoda.
For me the big problem with the recent statement is that it doesn't look
very professional, coming from the president of a group. It should have
been written more formally and without the invective, and having Star Wars
references simply scream "loser in a basement".
It's really a pity that open source has no really effective spokesperson at
this time.
* RMS is unbending in his convictions whether large (such as the value
of free software) or small (the whole GNU/Linux naming thing).
I admire his resolution, but it hampers his effectiveness
as a speaker to mainstream media and businesses.
* ESR started out pretty well: "CatB", whatever its flaws might be,
is a useful set of observations. Some bits of them might have
been anticipated by others, but he was the first to assemble them all
together and there are new ideas in there. (I found the idea of
project spaces to be new and illuminating.)
But... none of the followup essays were as notable, and he hasn't
developed anything very impressive (fetchmail is useful, but not
tremendously impressive). Worst, now he seems to be rewriting the
world to match his views. NTK is reliably snarky about it, but also
dead-on: see the second item in "Hard News" at
http://www.ntk.net/2003/06/06/.
* Linus does a pretty good job as a public speaker, and he doesn't have
any of RMS's or ESR's baggage, but he's also not very interested
in the job. (The same goes for Guido.)
The best candidate is Bruce Perens, IMHO. He has the technical background
of working on a non-trivial project (Debian), yet writes and presents in a
style that doesn't attract attention and doesn't let irrelevancies intrude.
Compare his commentary on SCO (http://www.perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html)
with ESR's counterblast. (To be fair, ESR's analysis of the code is also
pretty good; the OSI letter is where it becomes unacceptable.)
Here's hoping Perens' group, Global Technology Policy Institute, becomes a
success.
--amk
Martin Franklin
> Colin J. Williams wrote:
<snip>
> IS possible to do so (e.g., the mandatory trailing ':' in the head
> clauses of several Python statements;-). People who don't want ID
Wow trust the martellibot to drag this thread back round to Python!
thanks Alex!
>
> Alex
Alex Martelli
> Peter Hansen <pe...@engcorp.com> wrote previously:
> |No, you're not taking the word "ultimately" far enough. First the
> |state tries to get painful on your ass, so you resist. Then they get
> |really violent, and still you resist.
>
> Just as a question of biology, a person can be locked in handcuffs, or
> in a metal cage, and be neither dead nor have the power to kill others.
> This limit comes not out of the compromise and will-power of the
> detained person, but simply out of physics and anatomy. In most
> "ultimate" cases of state-sponsored violence, this is what happens...
> not someone being killed.
That depends on the determination of said person and his friends to
resist arrest -- with what means and to what extent. If the state's
power to arrest is not to be merely theoretical, it must be backed by
military ability (and will to exercise it) which exceed those of the
people's meant to be arrested.
People who do not understand this may not have lived their lives in
the land of the Mafia, I suspect -- when the prospect of a group of
organized criminals commanding armed power [[which is admittedly a
mere fraction of the state's, a limitation which however is partly
compensated by far higher readiness to use it in lethal ways]] is
not a theoretical conumdrum, but a living and vivid reality. And as
a consequence the corps of Carabinieri, midway between the normal
Police (also armed and quite ready to kill, but not a full-fledged
military organization) and other corps such as the Army, Navy etc.
Alex
falling star
LotLE>
LotLE> USA automobile deaths are ^43k/year
LotLE> USA gun-related deaths are ~29k/year
Where did you get your number? 29k a year??? Don't believe it. I
would guess the number to be somewhere in the 1000 to 2000 range.
Unless you are including people killed by police in your figure?
And suicides?
LotLE>
LotLE> The first number is bigger, yes.... but nothing at all like 100x as
LotLE> large.
LotLE>
LotLE> Pulling facts out of thin air (or equivalently, our of NRA leaflets
LotLE> or ESR's writing) is unpersuasive.
Absolutely agree with this. Also add, pulling facts out of
Handgun Control leaflets is equally unpersuasive. We should probably
agree that this is an emotional issue, and leave it at that. Or as Mark
Twain put it, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'.
However, when the little gangbangers in the neighborhood start
popping off, it is far more comforting to know that if they pop at me, I
can pop back, than it is to know that I can call the police. And when
the home invasion stories run in the newspaper, I don't worry as much as
if I had to depend only on calling the police.
The statistic the other poster mentioned about more guns lowering
crime: In states with concealed carry laws, *crime* is lower. Your
statistic about gun _deaths_ being higher in states with relaxed gun laws
is a canard. That is correlating gun deaths with overall crime. There
are issues of population as well. Again, we are talking statistics, and
there can be no agreement as there are so many correlated factors.
Once, I too was of faulty mind like you, fearful of my own shadow, thinking
that guns were the root of all evil, that they prowled the night and the
day, waiting to leap out and harm me. Then I saw the light. :-)
Just shows to go you the effectiveness of propaganda. However you want
to take that. :-)
LotLE>
LotLE> Yours, Lulu...
LotLE>
Damien Wyart
> * ESR started out pretty well: "CatB", whatever its flaws might
> followup essays were as notable, and he hasn't developed anything
> very impressive (fetchmail is useful, but not tremendously
> impressive).
What about his forthcoming "taoup"* ? Proofreading by several important
people from the Unix world should make it quite solid, I think. And
there is a section about Python... :)
* http://catb.org/~esr/writings/taoup/
--
Damien Wyart
Terry Reedy
"A.M. Kuchling" <a...@amk.ca> wrote in message
news:Kv-cnVDMbb1...@speakeasy.net...
> On 28 Aug 2003 04:17:56 -0700,
> It's really a pity that open source has no really effective
spokesperson at
> this time.
> * Linus does a pretty good job as a public speaker, and he
doesn't have
> any of RMS's or ESR's baggage, but he's also not very
interested
> in the job. (The same goes for Guido.)
He may get drawn into it more anyway. Nothing like being kicked in
the pants to stir up a little adrenalin. Here is his take on SCO's
dog show:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1227128,00.asp
(much shorter than the Perens analysis). Key line: "They are smoking
crack".
> The best candidate is Bruce Perens, IMHO. He has the technical
background
> of working on a non-trivial project (Debian), yet writes and
presents in a
> style that doesn't attract attention and doesn't let irrelevancies
intrude.
> Compare his commentary on SCO
(http://www.perens.com/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html)
> with ESR's counterblast. (To be fair, ESR's analysis of the code is
also
> pretty good; the OSI letter is where it becomes unacceptable.)
Revolutionary movements need both firebrands and sober analysts.
The SCO suit will prompt me to keep better 'audit trails' than I might
of overwise.
Prediction: If Torvalds and Perens are correct in what they said and
the courts (including the 'court of public opinion') agree, Linux and
the Open Source Movement will emerge stronger for the SCO challenge.
Terry J. Reedy
Richard Wesley
midn...@warm-summer-night.net (falling star) wrote:
> Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <me...@gnosis.cx> wrote:
> LotLE>
> LotLE> USA automobile deaths are ^43k/year
> LotLE> USA gun-related deaths are ~29k/year
>
> Where did you get your number? 29k a year??? Don't believe it. I
> would guess the number to be somewhere in the 1000 to 2000 range.
US murders with firearms were 8,259 in 1999, ranked #4 in the world.
Source: <http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir&int=15>
The US is a bit better per capita firearms murders at #6
<http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap&int=300>.
So while "falling star" appears to be swallowing some well cooked data,
the raw data is still pretty bad. Being in the company of South Africa,
Columbia, Zimbabwe and Mexico is not something that a progressive nation
should be proud of.
> Unless you are including people killed by police in your figure?
They don't have the data for this, but estimating from where I live
(Seattle, population 5e5, ~2/year) gives ~1000/year. I don't believe
from looking at the data that this would affect the US ranking
significantly. The US is in a big clump at the top of the rankings in
both total and per capita measurements.
> Or as Mark Twain put it, 'There are lies, damn lies, and statistics'.
He actually attributed this quote to Benjamin Disrali. Since neither of
them had any mathematical background (indeed they were both famous
rhetoricicians), I'm not sure they are qualified to comment on
statistics...
> The statistic the other poster mentioned about more guns lowering
> crime: In states with concealed carry laws, *crime* is lower. Your
> statistic about gun _deaths_ being higher in states with relaxed gun laws
> is a canard. That is correlating gun deaths with overall crime. There
> are issues of population as well. Again, we are talking statistics, and
> there can be no agreement as there are so many correlated factors.
Speaking of canards, the whole state law comparison arguments used by
both sides in this are pretty sketchy (partly for the reasons you
present). There are much larger data sets available from other
countries and they pretty clearly show that the US is anomalous. What
to do about it may be somewhat debatable, but when you have similar
firearms murder rates to countries that have de facto civil wars, it is
prudent to ask what you have in common with those areas might lead to
similar results.
One can argue that there is no comparison, but the data is so striking
that I believe the burden of proof is on those who make that argument.
For the affirmative, we observe that a heavily armed populace is one
common factor, as is lack of a common culture or social identity
(generally caused by tribal or economic differences). Personally I
think it is both: The US populace has very little in common outside of
its political institutions and it is heavily armed. This is
historically a bad combination, for if you are used to demonizing others
and you can kill them, you probably will.
Which brings us back to this Handgun Control/NRA meme war. The fact
that US politics is havily polarized is partly due to this lack of
social cohesion and partly due to there being so much at stake in
controlling the largest economy in the world. Once the debate becomes a
shouting match and a battle of egos, social cohesion drops even further
and you have a positive feedback loop. So in a small way, the argument
that you two are having is actually contributing to the problem under
discussion.
Please note that I am /not/ arguing that the gun violence in the US is
being caused by NRA vigilantes hunting down HCI partisans or vice versa.
But I do believe that villification of the "other" in the media by
large, well-funded organizations intent on maintaining and increasing
their own power, leads to feelings of persecution and self-righteousness
in /all/ members of society. In the end, those with poor impulse
control and easy access to deadly weapons vent these emotions with
tragic results. (This includes the police in some cases.)
So I think there are actually two policy needs here: handgun control
and more civil public discourse. I think that both are required, but I
doubt that either will happen. But to the NRA gun nuts, I say that a
civil society is a far better guarentee of your safety than being well
armed, and to the HCI nuts I say, you are more likely to achieve your
goal through a civil society free of fear, for guns are only a symptom
of the fear, not its root cause.
Anyway, this is waay of topic and I need to get back to work now...
--
- rmgw
http://www.trustedmedianetworks.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wesley Trusted Media Networks, Inc.
"Grownups have the most uninteresting explanations for things."
- C. S. Lewis, _The Magician's Nephew_
Alex Martelli
> Gerrit Holl wrote:
>>
>> OK; but the last lethal stage is reached *only* if the civilian involved
>> *also* defends himself with the same means as the government. So, things
>> will get lethal ulmitately *only* if the civilian owns the same arms as
>> the government. Consequently, ESR's statement is only applicable to the
>> situation he promotes.
False, even if one where to concede the part before your "consequently".
"The situation [ESR] promotes" is one of LEGAL ownership of firearms by
law-abiding citizens. The fact that some civilians own firearms is an
absolutely inevitable fact -- not even the most repressive and intrusive
government in the poorest, most-deprived country in the world has ever
been able to stop THAT since technology made firearms cheap & light
enough (note this doesn't cover the historical period where Japan, for
a while, did manage to wipe firearms off their islands -- including
their use by governments / armies / etc, of course). Therefore, the
possibility that some civilians WILL use firearms to achieve their aims
must be taken as an absolute given under present circumstances. The
trade-off on which ESR and I do disagree is between the somewhat more
limited availability [to anybody, including criminals] promoted by
gun-control measures, and the wider availability _to law-abiding
citizens_ promoted if gun-control measures are weaker/laxer; in any
case, ESR's (and Hayek's, and Mao's, ...:-) "ultimate foundation of
power" in terms of potential for violence is undisputable.
>> If I resist and keep resisting using only my fists or even a knife, the
>> Dutch police will be able to take me to prison without killing me. A
>> qualified police force should even be able to do this even when I am
>> using a gun, but does not always succeed in this.
>
> You just aren't cut out for this resistance stuff, are you? ;-)
> If I had a knife, I'd grab the nearest bystander (one of those types
> who hasn't chosen to opt out with me, and is therefore not "innocent" ;-)
> and I'd hold him or her hostage. After a while, the state would get
> tired of this and just shoot me.
Good point. More significant, perhaps, why talk of individuals when
"MOB" action is quite a possibility? Half a dozen policemen may well
be able to take to prison a single individual who's resisting arrest
when, say, sticks and stones represent the upper limit for everybody's
armament -- but who's to say we're talking of a SINGLE individual?
Doesn't he have friends, relatives, people who agree with his ideas,
willing to pelt the police with said stones? How many policemen can
the state field against the mob? It's unusual that the numbers can
be SO much in favour of the police that the mob can be dispersed or
arrested without weapon use *or threat*. Besides, individuals today
possess powerful, dangerous weapons known as CARS -- even though
direct use of cars as weapons is unusual, filling bottles with gas
and setting them on fire before throwing them at the police is quite
common. Are you going to ban cars to avoid this possibility?
In the end it does come down to (at the very least the possibility
or threat of) military confrontation. If the weapons available to
both sides, government and protesters, are somehow equalized (be it
down to sticks & stones, midway to "Molotov cocktails" and teargas,
or up to firearms on both sides), the government can prevail (in
the actual or potential "civil war" acts we're talking about) if,
and only if, they can field superior military power _anyway_ -- e.g.
through better training, organization, logistics (mobility of
forces to concentrate on points of clash), and the like.
Again, I suspect these are very theoretical possibilities for most
discussants. People who were in Bologna in 1976, on the other hand,
have witnessed these issues first-hand: with the "mob" of protesters
having nearly taken over the city, the government acted rapidly and
decisively by sending in the armed forces, with abundant tanks to
occupy and hold the city's key strategic points. In this way, it
was made militarily indifferent that the protesters had gained a
substantial amount of small arms by raiding shops, barracks etc;
none of those pistols &c were, obviously, any match for the tanks'
armour, guns and machine-guns -- to the point that *not one single
shot had to be fired* from those tanks' main guns in order for the
army to take the city... the psychological effect of the govt's
clear determination to do whatever it could take was enough. Even
though at the time I had (and in a sense still have) lots of
sympathy with the protesters' reasons (basically, the police had
shot and killed in cold blood a student who was loudly protesting,
and probably [this will never be proved either way] had thrown a
stone or two at the police -- the news of this murder inflamed the
full-fledged revolt which immediately followed), I _am_ admired at
the way the government managed to restore calm without any more
deaths on either side after that "triggering" one. Overwhelming
military force may not need to be USED, if it IS overwhelming in
an obvious-enough way to scare the shit out of the enemy (it DOES
depend on the enemy's motivations, of course -- make him bitter
enough and he won't be scare-able any more). Apparently, the role
of military preponderance in establishing the state's authority
can in fact be "deep" enough to become NON-obvious to otherwise
bright and perceptive people!-)
> Lulu talks about biological and physical restrictions, but also ignores
> the process needed to *get me into those handcuffs* in the first place.
> I could be pretty imaginative in finding ways to avoid that, which did
> not involve a gun, if you insisted.
Just get a crowd of friends and little imagination will be required.
> But at this point the discussion quickly degrades, because my sole
> point was that ESR used the word "ultimately" for a good reason, to
I fully agree (and I'm pretty sure Hayek expressed himself quite
similarly, though, darn it, I can't find a relevant URL).
> try to communicate to his audience a link between personal choice with
> respect to laws and such, and lethal force. I accept his point as
> made, even if I agree more with you guys that generally speaking it's
> a bit of a reach.
I don't agree about the "bit of a reach": again, I suspect that having
lived in Italy most of my life (and being in Bologna in particular in
1976) is what makes a difference -- what's theoretical to you guys is
obviously true to me because of real-life experiences.
Alex
Michael Hudson
> Tom Plunket <to...@fancy.org> wrote:
> > Learn Python, learn C++, learn Lisp. Understand what you like
> > and don't like about each of these languages.
>
> The most imporant thing you can learn in school is how to learn.
> Especially in a fast-moving technology field, most of the cutting-edge
> stuff you learn in school is going to be routine in 5 years and obsolete
> in 10.
I'm sure there are people who learnt ML during the CS program at
Cambridge more than five years ago...
<fx:runs away :-)>
--
Two things I learned for sure during a particularly intense acid
trip in my own lost youth: (1) everything is a trivial special case
of something else; and, (2) death is a bunch of blue spheres.
-- Tim Peters, 1 May 1998
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|* RMS is unbending in his convictions...
|* ESR started out pretty well[*]: "CatB", whatever its flaws might be...
|* Linus ...not very interested in the job.
|The best candidate is Bruce Perens, IMHO...
Bruce is great! (And Andrew is right on in his characterizations).
But somehow my money is on the law professors, e.g. Eben Moglen,
Lawrence Lessig, etc. They are not nearly so active, nor so "leaderly."
But I think the real battles are (must be) in courtrooms and
legislatures, not (anymore) on developers' mailing lists. It only does
limited good to have "working code" if the cops will knock down your
doors because that code violates the IP regime that Hollywood and MS
bought from congress (and from WIPO).
Yours, Lulu...
[*] Btw., I had not even know just how crazy ESR had gotten lately. Not
a shred of independence or thought seems to remain. He reads straight
off of Faux News or the RNC, e.g.:
http://armedndangerous.blogspot.com/2002_10_13_armedndangerous_archive.html
Dave Brueck
> In article <Qlo3b.7388$n94.4843@fed1read04>,
>
> midn...@warm-summer-night.net (falling star) wrote:
> > Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <me...@gnosis.cx> wrote:
> > LotLE>
> > LotLE> USA automobile deaths are ^43k/year
> > LotLE> USA gun-related deaths are ~29k/year
> >
> > Where did you get your number? 29k a year??? Don't believe it. I
> > would guess the number to be somewhere in the 1000 to 2000 range.
>
> US murders with firearms were 8,259 in 1999, ranked #4 in the world.
> Source: <http://www.nationmaster.com/red/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir&int=15>
That's it!?!? Wow... I'm amazed that number is so low! That means that, in the
U.S., you are twice as likely to die from an accident involving drunk drivers
(http://www.madd.org/stats/0,1056,3726,00.html), four times as likely to die
from influenza (http://www.cdc.gov/od/oc/media/pressrel/r030107.htm), and 67
times as likely to die from cancer
(http://www.millennium.com/rd/oncology/treatment/index.asp) than to be
murdered with a firearm. The odds of getting killed that way are roughly the
same as the odds that you'll die from aspirin or similar drugs
(http://www.drugwarfacts.org/causes.htm).
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|> LotLE> USA gun-related deaths are ~29k/year
|>
|> Where did you get your number? 29k a year??? Don't believe it. I
|> would guess the number to be somewhere in the 1000 to 2000 range.
Take a look at the US National Center for Injury Prevention and Control
(part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention):
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html
I do not seem to be able to create a direct URL, but on the form select
"Firearm" as the "cause or mechanism" of injury. This produces 28,663
deaths for Y2000. Incidentally, you can slice-and-dice the numbers
using this same form.
It is true, of course, that no all those deaths are homicides. Most of
them are suicides, and many are accidents. In other words EXACTLY what
I wrote in my original post. FWIW, gun accidents don't happen to people
without guns (or at least w/o nearby people having them). And suicides
attempted by gun succeed at a much higher rate than those done by other
means (and are much more likely to be attempted in the first place
because of the "convenience").
Yours, Lulu...
Terry Reedy
"Gerrit Holl" <ger...@nl.linux.org> wrote in message
news:mailman.106204991...@python.org...
> No; reading Newton is also perfectly valid.
Cute.
For those whoe don't get the joke, Newton, the great mathematical
physicist who helped spur the 'Age of Reason', also spent decades
'practicing' and secretly writing about alchemy and related magic,
which writings would now (and even then) be considered rubbish to
most. (They only became public in the 1930s.) Ironically, his
magical beliefs probably helped him conceive of gravity and its
'magical' action at a distance.
Terry J. Reedy
Terry Reedy
"Colin J. Williams" <c...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:jKl3b.9017$nw3.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> We seem to be straying from Python and/or advice to a you[ng]
person, but
> the third paragraph [of me] is clearly nonsense.
>
> To give an example. In Canada, over the next year or more, the
Members
> of Parliament and the Senators will have to make a choice as to
whether
> gay marriage is to continue in this country. No threat of force
exists.
> A decision will be made and the populace will accept it as being
more or
> less democratic.
If the decision is a 'resolution', like the US Congress declaring some
week to be 'National Python Week' or whatever*, then your are right.
However, the whole purpose of the US movement to enact gay marriage
'laws' is precisely to *enforce* what will be for some new, different,
and possibly morally repugnant (to the people 'enforced') behaviors.
Alex M. gave just one example (hospitals)**.
Terry J. Reedy
* I sometimes wonder about the relative cost of getting a Day versus a
Week, Month, or Year resolution ;-)
** Further off-topic opinions: keeping intimates apart when sick is
cruel; there are nonviolent ways to change old practices; gays are
short-sighted to ignore the costs of bringing government violence
threats into their relationships.
mackstann
> [...] And suicides
> attempted by gun succeed at a much higher rate than those done by other
> means (and are much more likely to be attempted in the first place
> because of the "convenience").
What's so bad about that? We already have a few billion too many humans
lying around anyways. Might as well let the volunteers do their thing..
--
m a c k s t a n n mack @ incise.org http://incise.org
Real Users are afraid they'll break the machine -- but they're never
afraid to break your face.
ma...@easynews.com
wrote:
>USA gun-related deaths are ~29k/year
And my probability of being one of them is pretty low - because I am usually
armed ;)
Geoff Gerrietts
> Geoff Gerrietts wrote:
> > Quoting Gerrit Holl (ger...@nl.linux.org):
> > > Peter Hansen wrote:
> > > > But if you refuse to go to prison, things get lethal pretty quickly.
> > > > That's what "ultimately" refers to above.
> > >
> > > Well, I don't think they get very lethal, they get painful at most.
> >
> > It depends on the case. Several times in recent history, the American
> > FBI has deployed lethal force when it was insufficiently provoked
> > (Ruby Ridge, Waco).
>
> "Several times in (American) history" is, of course, not the same as
> "every dicision", "ultimately".
And neither is it "they get painful at most", which is the point I was
making. ESR overstates his point to make his point; you're doing the
same. Whether either point can be made is a different question, as is
whether either should be made.
--G.
--
Geoff Gerrietts "There is no fate that cannot be
<geoff at gerrietts net> surmounted by scorn." --Albert Camus
Dave Brueck
> |The odds of getting killed that way are roughly the same as the odds
> |that you'll die from aspirin or similar drugs
>
>
> 2000, United States
> Adverse effects - Drugs Deaths and Rates per 100,000
> All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
> ICD-10 Codes: Y40-Y59,Y88.0
>
> Number of Deaths Population Crude Rate Age-Adjusted Rate**
> 255 275,264,999 0.09 0.09
Aren't statistics fun? :)
Think about it: even intuitively, 255 is *way* too low for a population of 275
million (that's essentially zero - in a population that size 255 people
probably die in sneezing-releated incidents every year) - I don't think that
statistic represents what you think it represents.
Compare, for example, an article from the Journal of the American Medical
Association:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/15/1200
Even just considering *hospitalized* people, there were 100,000 deaths due to
adverse effects of drugs.
Andrew Dalke
> Again, I suspect these are very theoretical possibilities for most
> discussants. People who were in Bologna in 1976, on the other hand,
> have witnessed these issues first-hand: with the "mob" of protesters
> having nearly taken over the city, the government acted rapidly and
> decisively by sending in the armed forces, with abundant tanks to
> occupy and hold the city's key strategic points.
Another datum for the discussion is Iraq. In Slate at
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080201/ and with reader responses
at http://slate.msn.com/id/2081185
In the March 11 New York Times, Neil MacFarquhar notes
in passing, "Most Iraqi households own at least one gun."
This comes as a shock to those of us who've been hearing
for years from the gun lobby that widespread firearms
ownership is necessary to prevent the United States from
becoming a police state.
Note also that the US allows Iraqis even now to own AK-47s,
which isn't legal in the US. The US tried an amnesty program,
for people to turn their weapons in, but only a few hundred of
the estimated 5 million were turned in.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/15/1060936052309.html
Andrew
da...@dalkescientific.com
Cliff Wells
I would think being armed increases your chances of engaging in an armed
confrontation. Your position somehow assumes you would win any such
conflict, which, until tested, is an unsupportable position.
I just watched "Bowling for Columbine" last weekend. Interesting watch
if you're interested in the topic.
Regards,
--
Cliff Wells, Software Engineer
Logiplex Corporation (www.logiplex.net)
(503) 978-6726 (800) 735-0555
Chad Netzer
Yes, because firearm owners ALWAYS get the drop on the bad duys, and
NEVER take one in the gut themselves. Also, they NEVER turn them on
themselves, either accidentally or intentionally, or have their kids
discover and accidentally discharge them, or have them stolen from them,
or shoot or get shot by the wrong person, or the police, or their
neighbor, etc.
I looked up a bunch of statistics yesterday, and don't have time today.
Suffice to say that the idea that owning a gun will give you a "low"
probability of being killed by one, even discounting suicides, is far
from obvious.
--
Chad Netzer
Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters
|And my probability of being one of them is pretty low - because I am
|usually armed ;)
Obviously, your probability is MUCH, MUCH higher of being one of them,
because you are armed. Most of them are suicides. My chance of being a
gun-inflicted suicide is 0.00%... yours is more (maybe you don't suffer
from depression now, and maybe no temporary personal tragedy has made
you despondent... but if such things do happen [of course, I do not wish
them on you]...)
Moreover, some of the rest are accidents. Again, my odds... well, more
than 0%, since my neighbors could misfire their guns in my direction.
But still much less than yours.
As for homicide, well, you're far more likely to be either a victim or a
killer. If you are armed, it is quite possible that an angry loved one
would have access to that gun.... and no doubt regret shooting you after
his/her anger cooled. And should you be mugged on the street by a
stranger, your chance of walking away dead (rather than just with less
money), are MANY times higher if you pull a gun on your assailant.
Yours, Lulu...
P.S. But wow! Isn't it fun to hear a big bang on the target range :-(.
Geoff Gerrietts
I think (though I don't know), from self-defense courses run by police
a long, long time ago at a university far, far away, that your
statement alone actually /elevates/ the probability that you will be
one of them. To /lower/ the probability, you'll need to talk about the
time you've spent on a tactical course or in police training.
--
Geoff Gerrietts "That's it! I've had it with your sassy mouth!
<geoff at gerrietts net> I didn't want to do this! (Well, actually,
http://www.gerrietts.net/ I did....)" -- Mojo Jojo, "Bubblevicious"
Andrew Dalke
> And my probability of being one of them is pretty low - because I am
usually
> armed ;)
Old joke. Probably get you arrested if you uttered it within 5 miles
of an airport. (Luckily, my nearest one is further away than that.
And has but one gate.)
Copying from http://www.pd.org/~jcf/ints/rtint.txt when Richard
Thompson is asked if he'll fly TWA
RT It's still a lot safer than driving in Los Angeles. I always carry my
own bomb !
Your own bomb ?
RT Yes. The odds of anybody carrying a bomb on a plane are a million to
one. So I bring my own.
Huh ?
RT Well, the odds of *two* people carrying *two* bombs on a plane are a
trillion to one.
Andrew
da...@dalkescientific.com
Gerrit Holl
> In article <Qlo3b.7388$n94.4843@fed1read04>,
> midn...@warm-summer-night.net (falling star) wrote:
> > Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters <me...@gnosis.cx> wrote:
> > LotLE>
> > LotLE> USA automobile deaths are ^43k/year
> > LotLE> USA gun-related deaths are ~29k/year
> >
> > Where did you get your number? 29k a year??? Don't believe it. I
> > would guess the number to be somewhere in the 1000 to 2000 range.
>
> US murders with firearms were 8,259 in 1999, ranked #4 in the world.
There is a difference between 'murders with firearms' and
'gun-related deaths'.
Gerrit.
--
112. If any one be on a journey and entrust silver, gold, precious
stones, or any movable property to another, and wish to recover it from
him; if the latter do not bring all of the property to the appointed
place, but appropriate it to his own use, then shall this man, who did not
bring the property to hand it over, be convicted, and he shall pay
fivefold for all that had been entrusted to him.
-- 1780 BC, Hammurabi, Code of Law
--
Asperger Syndroom - een persoonlijke benadering:
http://people.nl.linux.org/~gerrit/
Het zijn tijden om je zelf met politiek te bemoeien:
http://www.sp.nl/
Gerrit Holl
> Jacek Generowicz <jacek.ge...@cern.ch> wrote in message news:<tyfk78z...@pcepsft001.cern.ch>...
> >
> > One learns so much more from reading opinions opposed to one's own,
> > than from reading ones with which you agree.
>
> I thought it was worth repeating.
Of course, this is only true if the other oppinions are based on
points (can't find the English word for "gefundeerd"... founded?)
In the Dutch politics newsgroup nl.politiek, a lot of opinions are
available which aren't mine, but less than 5% of them has any points.
Gerrit.
--
237. If a man hire a sailor and his boat, and provide it with corn,
clothing, oil and dates, and other things of the kind needed for fitting
it: if the sailor is careless, the boat is wrecked, and its contents
ruined, then the sailor shall compensate for the boat which was wrecked
and all in it that he ruined.
Cliff Wells
> Of course, if Hayek is correct, then saying that we do NOT want the
> government to have the monopoly of lethal force is exactly equivalent
> to saying we do not want effective government (Hobbes would surely
> argue that way) -- we prefer deliberately-hobbled government to
> government that is maximally effective. In this day and age it's hard
> to make a case for deliberately inefficient arrangements, although it
> IS possible to do so (e.g., the mandatory trailing ':' in the head
> clauses of several Python statements;-). People who don't want ID
> cards to exist, don't want government DB's to be cross-linked, etc,
> plead much the same case -- they prefer inefficient government (whose
> inefficiencies may help terrorists and other criminals) to efficient
> government (whose efficiency might allow more effective oppression).
Alex,
This is one of the most compelling things I have read in quite a while.
Thanks.
Peter Hansen
Dave Brueck wrote:
>
> On Thursday 28 August 2003 12:40 pm, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters wrote:
> > |The odds of getting killed that way are roughly the same as the odds
> > |that you'll die from aspirin or similar drugs
> >
> > No... this one is just way off. According to above URL form:
> >
> > 2000, United States
> > Adverse effects - Drugs Deaths and Rates per 100,000
> > All Races, Both Sexes, All Ages
> > ICD-10 Codes: Y40-Y59,Y88.0
> >
> > Number of Deaths Population Crude Rate Age-Adjusted Rate**
> > 255 275,264,999 0.09 0.09
>
> Aren't statistics fun? :)
>
> Think about it: even intuitively, 255 is *way* too low for a population of 275
> million (that's essentially zero - in a population that size 255 people
> probably die in sneezing-releated incidents every year) - I don't think that
> statistic represents what you think it represents.
Dave, I think you missed the "rates per 100,000" part, above. That
means roughly 700,000 deaths for the population given, not 255.
-Peter