Software Needs Philosophers

[Mirco Wahab]

after all, somebody dumped some
backup of his brain to use-net:

Software Needs Philosophers
by Steve Yegge, 2006-04-15.

including lots of personal details.

So what I basically took from it
is written in this paragraph:

I was born and raised a Roman Catholic, and I renounced it when I was
thirteen years old, after my Uncle Frank (a devout terrorist Catholic
if there ever was one) told me to stop reading the Bible, that it would
“really screw a person up†to do that, that you needed someone to
interpret it for you. That wasn't the only reason I renounced it, but
it'll suffice for our purposes.

Under 'best effort interpretation', one could see
the whole thing in the light of the small thing:
he's rescuing 'us' by telling us:
- to think rational,
- to de-construct our beliefs and
- don't put that much personal sympathy into
'subculture group pseudoreligion',
the latter is what he thinks 'computer language culture'
really is today.

I can't see what's wrong with these hypotheses
(besides he got some terms wrong); he describes
things we most probably are already aware of
(in our own context of notions) - but wouldn't
bother to fill the communication lines of the
world with it (wouldn't give a damn about ...)

(my €0.05)

Mirco

f'up ==> c.l.p.m

 

[Mumia W.]

Software Needs Philosophers

by Steve Yegge, 2006-04-15.

Software needs philosophers.

[...]
----
This post is archived at:
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/software-needs-philosophers.html

and
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/_p/software_phil.html

This essay is reported with permission.

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
? http://xahlee.org/

Remember that this was a blog post from Steve Yegge that Xah
Lee got permission to repost.

It was a little long, and I got bored in the middle, but I
think I understand (a little) Steve's point. He thinks we need
software philosophers to break programmers' religious-like
devotion to their languages of choice. I don't agree with
this.

I'd say we need software philosophers to help us see where
software is taking us so that we can avoid bad spots if
necessary. After all, the computer might just be the cotton
gin of our time. We might be virtually enslaved by
our own information if we don't watch out.

Philosophers have the ability to think long, to think big,
and to think about the future, and to think about the
consequences of actions in a rational manner. They would be
able to warn us if we were about to do something stupid with
our society.

However, Steve Yegge's software philosophers only serve to
eliminate programmer's passions for their programming
languages. While removing irrational beliefs is a good
thing, I see Yegge's philosophers moving through the
software industry, destroying everyone's passions for
programming, and, as a result, the software industry is
destroyed.

It's scary the way I see it. On the other hand, I support
rational thinking, and part of supporting rational thinking
is (presumably) having the courage to support rational
thinking even when the results are not to your immediate
liking. IOW, I have to support something that scares the
bejeebers out of me.

Yet on the other, other hand, if people think rationally,
the quality of life can only improve. Boy, am I confused

Fortunately, people have their passions, for both
programming and life, and that's not going to change anytime
soon. If it does, it'll be a very gray world indeed.

Thanks again Xah for getting these brain cells working
again.

 

[Matt Garrish]

Software Needs Philosophers

by Steve Yegge, 2006-04-15.

Software needs philosophers.

[...]
----
This post is archived at:
http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/software-needs-philosophers.html

and
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/_p/software_phil.html

This essay is reported with permission.

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
? http://xahlee.org/

Remember that this was a blog post from Steve Yegge that Xah
Lee got permission to repost.

It was a little long, and I got bored in the middle, but I
think I understand (a little) Steve's point. He thinks we need
software philosophers to break programmers' religious-like
devotion to their languages of choice. I don't agree with
this.

I'd say we need software philosophers to help us see where
software is taking us so that we can avoid bad spots if
necessary. After all, the computer might just be the cotton
gin of our time. We might be virtually enslaved by
our own information if we don't watch out.

Philosophers have the ability to think long, to think big,
and to think about the future, and to think about the
consequences of actions in a rational manner. They would be
able to warn us if we were about to do something stupid with
our society.

Thank you for that laugh. I think you're the first person I've read in this
century who advocates Plato's silly notion of the philosopher kings. If you
want to talk philosophy, please jump foward past the Enlightment.

Matt

 

[vjg]

(BTW: Have you ever considered the possibility that philosophers might
not be interested in tab-versus-spaces-debates in the first place?
Maybe they have more interesting matters to discuss. Just like the rest
of us.)

Debate? There's no valid dabate. Tabs bad. Spaces good.

 

[Timo Stamm]

Welcome to my junk filters !!!!

Thanks for informing each and every reader of the newsgroups
comp.lang.perl.misc, comp.lang.python, comp.lang.java.programmer,
comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.function about your junk filters.


Timo

 

[=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Dra=BEen_Gemi=E6?=]

Thanks for informing each and every reader of the newsgroups
comp.lang.perl.misc, comp.lang.python, comp.lang.java.programmer,
comp.lang.lisp, comp.lang.function about your junk filters.

Anytime......

DG

 

[John Bokma]

fupto: poster

Anytime......

Instead of adding Xah to your junk filter, you might want to complain with
his ISP: abuse at sbcglobal dot net

Hosting provider has already taken steps

Google Groups might not care, but its worth a try. The more people
complain, the faster Xah has to hop ISPs and providers, and maybe one day
he understand that shitting in your garden costs money.

 

[Dan Mercer]

: Xah Lee wrote:
:
:
: I wonder where you get your historical "facts" form? (Monty Python
: movies?) Let's just add a few fun facts: Yes, philosophy did flourish
: in ancient greece, but liberty certainly didn't. Yes, Athens was (at
: least most of the time) a democracy - which by the way, most
: philosophers thought was a very bad thing. But still, about 90% of the
: population of Athens were slaves at that time. Not just "mentally
: enslaved", no, real, physical slaves.

Small quibble - while only 10% of the population were citizens,
by no means were the rest all slaves. The other 90% were children,
women, metoikoi (a commercial class of free men of foreign birth
who paid for the right to live in Athens) and house slaves.
Most Athenian slaves lived in the country.
: Also, it was dangerous to have oppinions that authorities didn't like
: (Socrates for example was sentenced to death because of impiety,
: Anaxagoras and Aristoteles had to flee because of similar charges,
: Hipposus, who _proved_ a flaw in Pythagoras' number theory was
: drowned).

Which should act as a warning to all who employ the Socratic Method. Sadly,
it doesn't.

Dan Mercer

 

[John D Salt]

[Snips]

Wrong. We live in a paradise of ideas and possibilities well beyond the
wildest dreams of only 20 years ago.

What exciting new ideas exist in software that are both important and
cannot be traced back to 1986 or earlier?

I'd like to believe that there are some, but I can't think of any at the
moment.

All the best,

John.

 

[Xah Lee]

I'm sorry to trouble everyone. But as you might know, due to my
controversial writings and style, recently John Bokma lobbied people to
complaint to my web hosting provider. After exchanging a few emails, my
web hosting provider sent me a 30-day account cancellation notice last
Friday.

I'm not sure I will be able to keep using their service, but I do hope
so. I do not like to post off-topic messages, but this is newsgroup
incidence is getting out of hand, and I wish people to know about it.

I wrote some full detail here:
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/harassment.html

If you believe this lobbying to my webhosting provider is unjust,
please write to my web hosting provider (e-mail address removed)

Your help is appreciated. Thank you.

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/

 

[Erik Max Francis]

I'm sorry to trouble everyone. But as you might know, due to my
controversial writings and style, recently John Bokma lobbied people to
complaint to my web hosting provider. After exchanging a few emails, my
web hosting provider sent me a 30-day account cancellation notice last
Friday.

It's not simply harassment if your ISP considers it a TOS violation.
You did something, it was reported to your ISP, your ISP considered it a
violation of their TOS, were warned, failed to comply and continued
doing it, and now are suffering the consequences. Should this really be
any surprise to you?

This has nothing to do with whether you feel that the complaint or the
judgement against you was "right" -- this has happened before; this is
familiar territory for you. If you do something, your ISP tells you not
to do it anymore, and then you continue doing it, why should you be
surprised at the inevitable outcome? (I'm impressed they're giving you
a 30-day notice, quite frankly ... I'm sure you'll "take advantage" of it.)

I'm not sure I will be able to keep using their service, but I do hope
so. I do not like to post off-topic messages, but this is newsgroup
incidence is getting out of hand, and I wish people to know about it.

Apart from the obvious fact of you being a general tool, why would you
_want_ to consider continuing to use their service if you felt that they
were cutting you off unfairly?

The alternative is that you're not surprised by this action and are
simply trying to spin things in your favor.

 

[Dag Sunde]

I'm sorry to trouble everyone. But as you might know, due to my
controversial writings and style, recently John Bokma lobbied people to
complaint to my web hosting provider. After exchanging a few emails, my
web hosting provider sent me a 30-day account cancellation notice last
Friday.

The solution to your problem is very simple:

Stop posting your "controversial writings and style" to public
newgroups, and keep them on your web-server where they belong.

<snipped />

 

[ilitzroth]

Xah Lee schreef:

I'm sorry to trouble everyone. But as you might know, due to my
controversial writings and style, recently John Bokma lobbied people to
complaint to my web hosting provider. After exchanging a few emails, my
web hosting provider sent me a 30-day account cancellation notice last
Friday.

I'm not sure I will be able to keep using their service, but I do hope
so. I do not like to post off-topic messages, but this is newsgroup
incidence is getting out of hand, and I wish people to know about it.

I wrote some full detail here:
http://xahlee.org/Periodic_dosage_dir/t2/harassment.html

If you believe this lobbying to my webhosting provider is unjust,
please write to my web hosting provider (e-mail address removed)

Your help is appreciated. Thank you.

Xah
(e-mail address removed)
∑ http://xahlee.org/

We seem to have strayed a long way from Voltaire's
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it.",
but that was of course the age of enlightenment.
Immanuel

 

[Ant]

From my point of view, this issue has two sides:

1) Xah is posting to the newgroups valid topics for discussion - if
some find these controversial, then all the better: it means that the
topic has provoked some thought. You only need to look at the quantity
of Xah's threads to see how popular they are (even if you filter out
the "you're in my kill file", or "plonk" style spam that some people
feel the need to post)

2) Xah cross posted the posts to several newsgroups he has an interest
in.

Now this second point should be the only factor for reporting him to
his ISP. Given that it has gone this far, wouldn't it be fair to give
the guy a break on the condition that if he wants to post to a variety
of newgroups, that he does it individually rather than as a cross post?

 

[Ian Wilson]

Xah Lee schreef:

Which reminds me of
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#not_losing

We seem to have strayed a long way from Voltaire's
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your
right to say it.",

I don't think we have. Surely Voltaire didn't support speaking in
inappropriate fora? He didn't support causing a public nuisance?

Would you lay down *your* life to defend Xah's "right" to wallpaper your
street, your church, your school with printed essays about his personal
obsessions?

In societies with a right to free speech, there are limits on where and
how you may exercise that right. For example, you don't have a right to
force any newspaper or TV station to publish your speech.

Xah's ISP can decide whether their terms of service provide Xah with a
"right" to publish anything he wishes through their facilities
regardless of established standards of appropriateness.

 

[Alan]

With apologies to Voltaire:
If Xah Lee did not exist, it would be necessary for John Bokma to
invent him.

Xah and Bokma are both idiots, they truly deserve each other. The
sooner you killfile these two clowns, the happier you'll be.

 

[ilitzroth]

I agree there are limits to you right to free speech, but I believe Xah
Lee is not crossing
any boundaries. If he starts taking over newspapers and TV stations be
sure to notify me,
I might revise my position.
Immanuel

 

[Ant]

Surely Voltaire didn't support speaking in inappropriate fora?

Who knows? But the fora Xah posts to are few (5 or so?) and
appropriate. "Software needs Philosophers" wasn't even his rant, but
was certainly appropriate to all groups he posted to.

If you don't like Xah's posts, then don't read them. Killfile him or
whatever. But they *are* generally on-topic, they are not frequent,
they are not spam and they do seem to be intended to provoke discussion
rather than being simply trolls.

I have no particular affinity for Xah's views, but what does get up my
nose is usenet Nazism.

 

[Alex Hunsley]

I'm sorry to trouble everyone. But as you might know, due to my
controversial writings and style, recently John Bokma lobbied people to
complaint to my web hosting provider. After exchanging a few emails, my
web hosting provider sent me a 30-day account cancellation notice last
Friday.

I'm not sure I will be able to keep using their service, but I do hope
so.

I do not like to post off-topic messages,

You don't? Then who has been forcing you to post off-topic essays? A man
with a gun?

but this is newsgroup
incidence is getting out of hand, and I wish people to know about it.

Nothing out of hand here. You are abusing usenet, and for once an ISP is
doing something prompt about it. More power them.

 

[Tim N. van der Leeuw]

I agree there are limits to you right to free speech, but I believe Xah
Lee is not crossing
any boundaries. If he starts taking over newspapers and TV stations be
sure to notify me,
I might revise my position.
Immanuel

Perhaps he's not crossing boundaries of free speech, but he's
repeatedly crossing boundaries on usenet nettiquette, even though
repeatedly he's being asked not to do so. (Extensive crossposting to
various usenetgroups / mailing lists, for instance).

If he would just post his stuff on a blog and find a why to get people
to visit hist blog, without crossposting to 10 usenest groups for each
post he makes to his blog, then nobody would mind him expressing his
opinions, and those interested could discuss them wildly on the blog.

But I've repeatedly seen people telling him not to crosspost his essays
to so many newsgroups, yet he continues doing it.
If that's enough to quit his subscription with his ISP I don't know,
but since I've stopped following threads originated by him I don't know
what other grounds there would be.

Cheers,

--Tim