Read about it here
My favourite tip:
I popped ALL the keys off to allow the keyboard to completely dry (either draw, write down where the keys go, or take a picture so you can put ‘em all back in the right place)
There speaks the voice of experience!
Posted in ideas, Technology
Blog post from Tony highlights the slightly ridiculous setup of the Luas line in Dublin
Posted in travel
In a philosophy class last night, I was reminded of why I enjoy philosophy so much. In 1963, an American philosopher called Edmund Gettier wrote a three-page paper that upset thousands of years worth of consensus on the definition of knowledge.
I was amazed at the thought of such a short piece of thought having such a big impact, but also the simplicity of the form of his ‘counter-examples’. So simple, in fact, that I can give one in this blog post!
The historic definition of knowledge had three parts. To say you have ‘knowledge’ of something, you need:
This would seem a fairly comprehensive definition of knowledge, but Gettier found a gaping hole in it. Take the following example:
You are walking through London, at two minutes to noon. You’re not wearing a watch, and so look at Big Ben to check the time. It shows the time as 11.58. So, you have justification for believing something which is also true. But is your claim to know the time watertight?
Imagine the following condition applies to the scenario:
Unknown to you (and those around you), Big Ben stopped working at 11.58pm the night before. In this case, your ‘knowledge’ about the time is mere coincidence. Does it still seem right to claim that you ‘know’ the correct time?
(This ‘counter-example’ is not one that Gettier used in his paper, but it has exactly the same form. You can probably think of other ‘counter-examples’ pretty easily)
Philosophers have responded to Gettier in a number of ways. One approach is to add an extra condition to the definition of knowledge- that the match between the way the world is and your knowledge is non-accidental. Other philosophers have argued for a narrower definition of justification, which would exclude Gettier’s counter-examples. However, there doesn’t seem to be a neat answer to Gettier’s challenge yet (see this Princeton lecture).
Posted in ideas, london, philosophy
Off to Uxbridge for a new water pump for the boat. Not much sight-seeing to be had there, except for the station:
Just had a new hard drive fitted to my nearly-new Macbook, after the original one suddenly died. I feel a mixture of emotions:
Posted in Grr, information, Technology
First world results on a third world budget | Special reports | Guardian Unlimited
Interesting comparison of Cuban healthcare vs. UK healthcare. For me, this was a very interesting point:
The trouble with the NHS, some say, is that it is not a national health service but a national sickness service. The focus is not on keeping us well, but keeping us alive. Hospital intensive care units take priority in the public mind over diet and exercise campaigns.
Cuba is admired by public health experts in Britain and around the world for putting the horse before the cart. Unable to afford too many hi-tech operating theatres, it focuses its efforts on keeping its people well and picking up illness early – when it’s easier and cheaper to treat.
Someone once told me that because the NHS was set up just after WWII, it became incredibly good at acute care, but not so good at prevention and day-to-day stuff.
Posted in ideas, philosophy
Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | A police state? Crying wolf wont protect civil liberties
Here’s what I think:
A couple of dangerous assumptions here:
1. We used to have far fewer protections for civil liberties, so we shouldn’t complain about the present situation
2. New technology allows new intrusions to civil liberties- we should intervene in new ways because we can
I also think the writer is wrong to put (fully justified) anxieties about automatic and compulsory state collection of personal information (id cards, DNA databases etc) and the more questionable libertarian right to smoke in a public place in the same boat.
Where does this assumption that collecting reams of personal data for no immediate use has some kind of benefit come from?
I think the writer is quite right to say that the debate on civil liberties should be nuanced, and that both left and right can get it wrong by being too shrill. However, he then goes on to muddy the waters with some of his own faulty logic…
Posted in Grr, ideas, philosophy
Good advice from a Freelance newsletter I get each week
Posted in Uncategorized
Liked it. 
things that might have been otherwise 