in reply to Re: Re: Re: Re: Boycott O'Reilly
in thread Boycott O'Reilly
Applying a given set of beliefs to whatever problem comes your way simplifies things,
It doesn't simplify anything. It's nice to refer to it as something so simple as "applying a given set of beliefs" but trust me when I tell you that book after book of philosophical what-have-you is not filled with One Right Way to apply a set of beliefs.
I think the goal of philosophy is a consistency. I think a philosopher would like to look at the activities of the day before them and see a consistent goal emerging -- surpassing 'normal' humanity, ascribing to a percieved God's intended path, etc.
but I prefer custom made problem solving.
This isn't saying you have no philosophy. This is saying your philosophy is that you should examine each situation less in terms of 'beliefs' and more in terms of the uniqueness of the situation. It's still a philosophy.
But it doesn't surprise me to hear a philosophical argument here because I see philosophy as being related to psychology, which I've heard alot of programmers are into. I hate psychology too.
I cannot imagine why. Programming is psychology for a much less advanced brain. Psychology is programming for a much more advanced computer.
Since there are no such things as units of goodness or badness, it depends on the quality of the good and bad things, not just the quantity, but generally, you shouldn't want to prevent X good things in order to prevent less-than-X bad things. I'm not certain whether books like the one I'm complaining about would help more good guys than bad,
Okay -- then the original statement should probably have reflected a lack of sureness. It didn't. You titled it "Boycott O'Reilly" and, as far as I can tell, you're unhappy because the book describes security flaws. Describing security flaws is vital to fixing security flaws, even if it makes you uncomfortable somehow.
but some forms of helping good guys aren't as important as preventing helping bad guys.
That is true. "Some good things aren't as important as preventing some bad things." Unfortunately, that wasn't what you described -- you suggested that a book publisher be boycotted because you didn't like how one of their books was written. If you're telling me that I should punish the people who put the Camel, the Ram, etc. on bookshelves because they produced a book that got mixed reviews, then I'm going to think you're missing something, possibly on purpose.
You are what you think.