News as Research

I grew up learning that good essayists challenges their own ideas by reading sources that oppose their own view, and even presenting their arguments in their own essay. People expect responsible journalists to give both sides of the issue.

I see too much of biased journalism. I also see too much misrepresenting the other side of the issue, or cases where there are many sides of an issue.

I think the real problem is not just with news agencies. It is with people who don't seek alternative viewpoints that challenge their own ideas. This is at the core of real science--testing your own hypothesis means challenging it with any alternatives you can dream up.

It's time to start doing real research, people. It's time to start verifying sources, to start seeking out opposing viewpoints and subscribing to them (even if you don't agree, you are better informed if you read them).

Of course, nobody can afford to read every story in triplicate (their favorite journalist/news source, an opposing viewpoint, and an alternative third viewpoint). I think this is what the scriptures mean when they say every man ought to be engaged in a good cause. But I think it behooves us, when questions of national importance come up, or when we have an opportunity to vote with either ballots, donations, or our time--it behooves us to be informed. That means learning two other viewpoints, and questioning whether another viewpoint might exist. That means praying for help to see what is right, and then: "It becometh every man who has been warned to warn his neighbor."

Sometimes (or often) you won't agree with friends on what you've learned. So learn to be able to peaceable disagree, and learn to exchange research sources rather than emotional exchanges of words.

This I tell myself. Now off I go to read the other presidential candidate's site. And a third presidential candidate's website.

-----
Articles that triggered this blog post include Orson Scott Card's essays on the current election situation. He's a democrat, but he opposes Obama. I oppose obama, but I am not a democrat. We don't see eye to eye on everything, but I think his essays have a lot of good to say.
http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2008-10-12-1.html

End User License Agreements.

Okay, I realize people tend not to read license agreements. But when I see things like this in a EULA, I think "Did anyone review this?" and I realize these people have little respect for their customers:

Mozy.home's license agreement has the phrase: "Do not taunt happy fun ball." No kidding. And here's the scary part: the license also says they can modify it anytime, and will only post a notice on their website for 15 days. Moreover, they reserve the right to delete your data, and claim absolutely no liability for loss of data, etc. There's nothing about privacy, so even though data is encrypted, who knows if they don't also have the key? Bleh. Forget mozy online backups--I have no confidence in the security of putting my data on their servers.

If you want something worth having, pay for it. I think I'm going to buy Norton Ghost or SyncbackSE.

Truth value and All Statements.

Please indicate whether each of the following sentences is true or false. If it is neither, then describe what it is instead and explain how something can be neither true or false.

I do not guarantee I have the correct answers for all of them.

"This sentence is either true or false."
"This statement is false."
"This sentence is a lie."
"This sentence is not true."
"This sentence is not true if it's not nonsense."
"This sentence is also nonsense."
"This statement is as true as the one before it."
"This statement is true if it's not nonsense."
"If a sentence must be true or false, then this is neither."
"This phrase is not true, but this sentence is."
"This phrase is true, but this sentence is not."
"Sometimes this sentence is nonsensical."
"Sometimes this sentence is true."
"This statement is never what it appears to be."
"This statement is always untrue."
"This statement might be false."
"This statement might be true."
"It is not clear whether this sentence is true or false."

Finally, can you come up with a sentence that would stump someone who has correctly categorized all of the above sentences?

Recommended Reading: Government and Economics

Speech entitled "The Proper Role of Government" by Sec. Agriculture Ezra Taft Benson
Philosophy and principles regarding government help, charity, etc.

"Economics on One Lesson" by Henry Hazlitt.
Much more detailed discussion on most if not all sorts of economic programs governments come up with. Why they cause more harm than good, and aren't needed at all. Well reasoned and argued, so I don't have to argue the points myself. Please read this book.

Both can be read online for free. You can find the items via google.

Recommended Reading: The Law

There are principles in this book that are fundamental to understanding law, government and politics -- Given how important is has been, I am disappointed I was never introduced to it in high school and college. Someone in my family referred me to it.

Quote: "What, then, is law? It is the collective organization of the individual right to lawful defense."
Please read The Law, by Frederic Bastiat

Verifying Online Transactions

I recently read an interview of Bruce Schneier about companies not being responsible enough for security to make the changes needed to protect our online finances among other things.

Well, I know getting people to adopt new technology is difficult if it makes life less convenient, so perhaps this is a pipe dream or fanciful idea that has all sorts of prerequisites I won't go into in this post:

Companies like Visa should provide a web appliance for vendors to manage sales transactions, so that vendors (eg amazon or facebook) never actually have a credit card number. The user verifies the sale and authorizes it to Visa (or someone else). This would have to involve something like a SecurID key fob so that a physical device has to be stolen to successfully steal a credit card.

As a note, since I started this post I did some searching. Google is already doing something like this. Paypal is too, but already has key fobs for authentication as well as virtual credit cards. This makes me trust and want to use paypal.

Potential Effects: (1) One point of failure/attack [the transaction provider]. (3) A credit card can't be stolen anymore without stealing a physical device. [Reduces/eliminates wholesale credit card fraud.] (3) Users must get a key fob for every credit card or account. [could get unweildy if you end up needing 4 to 10 of them]

Schneier and Solutions

I recently read an article by Bruce Schneier, saying we need companies to be more responsible, legally, for security in order for security to improve.

So I got to thinking about how to do this, and here is my idea for a doubly sharp sword:
Make financial companies the most responsible, but give them an out: if they can catch the perpetrators of an attack against them, they won't be held (as) personally accountable for the security breach.

This would do three things: companies would have to write rather secure applications in order to even get into the market. They would have to measure their security in terms of guarantees of safety or results (about the only measurement possible). It would also become very scary to be a successful criminal. Bounty hunters, apparently, can be very scary.