The only morally correct way to convince someone of your position is to present the evidence (and the rationale).

Note that in general, public discourse hasn't actually engaged in this for ages. We're awash in waves of Bulverism, where the object is not to prove your position and disprove your opponent's position through rational argument, but to have your opponent's arguments dismissed on the basis of an assertion about their motives or background.

and a wooden snake?

Is it April already?

That's the problem right there: many people believe that The Daily Show is actually a legitimate news show.

I see it as more a commentary on the 'quality' (or lack thereof) of 'legitimate' news shows.

The real problem with news today (biases aside) I see as a variant of the 'confidence in your ability to listen well undermines your ability to listen well' meme. When listening, you are going to misunderstand some things. If you accept that, you'll be on the lookout for it and be ready to acknowledge your mistakes and correct your misunderstanding. Confidence that you won't misunderstand just means that you won't be on the lookout for it and will be less likely to acknowledge and correct your mistake.

I think something similar to the latter is going on with a lot of news reporting today, compounded by marketing and legal justifications for not admitting your mistakes (admitting mistakes undermines the marketing department's portrayal of your news organizations as 'reliable' and 'dependable', and the lawyers seem to have this idea that if you don't admit to error, you'll be less likely to be sued - probably self-defeating, as it will push people who would have accepted an honest apology into suing 'just to put them in their place').

Google's version of Clippy?

With the power levels being used, interference to ham operation isn't likely to be a problem. What's likely to be more of a problem is - how RFI-susceptible are the receivers going to be? They appear to be targeting the upper short-wave and lower VHF region (10-40Mhz). These receivers need to be pretty sensitive to pick up the low-level signals being sent by the sensors. If a neighbor (or the occupant) fires up a legal-limit ham transmitter (or a CB with an illegal amplifier), will they be selective enough to remain operational in the presence of that strong signal? The devices they built run in the 27Mhz area. I wonder if they've tested how they work if a nearby CB transmitter is operating, or if a a ham transmitter is operating on 10 meters?

As always, the short-term bottom line is the only thing that really matters.

There, fixed that for you. The long-term bottom line will suffer for throwing away experience, but too often, management doesn't care as long as it looks good in the short term.

Agreed. The real issue isn't profit in itself, it's are those pursuing profit willing to allow what they do for profit to be limited by appropriate morals and ethics? The profit motive is good in a context where other influences keep people from crossing moral and ethical lines in the pursuit of profit. Make the profit motive the 'only' good, and it can't help but turn corrupt, as there's nothing to limit what's done for profit. The problem isn't the profit motive itself, it's the lack of belief in sufficient moral and ethical codes with enough authority to keep people from going over the lines.

The ironic thing is that there are two groups that tend to conflate the profit motive and greed, and they're on the opposite ends of the economic political spectrum. The economic far left conflates them because they erroneously see the profit motive as an intrinsic evil, and the economic far right conflates them because they erroneously see the profit motive as an independent and non-overrideable good.

G. K. Chesterton nailed it when he observed that when a moral scheme (he actually said religious scheme) is shattered, the problem isn't only that the vices are let loose, the problem is even more that the virtues are let loose and run around independently, and a virtue separated from the other virtues that balance it wreaks havoc, not good.

I think he's saying that, not having Mac knowledge, said Windows administrator father won't be called upon to fix Mac problems. This, of course, may well be wishful thinking.

Part of what you're running into is the distinction between packers and mappers (Google 'The Programmer's Stone' for more info). Packers learn by collecting little packets of information, while mappers learn by making mental maps of information. I don't agree with all the directions the originator of the concept has taken it, but I've found it to be a useful distinction. IT types (especially programmers) tend to be mappers, while the user is typically a packer. Businesses tend to run on a Packer mindset. Packers are typically much more comfortable with memorized procedures than with having to think about unfamiliar information(as you noted).

Instead of trying to tweak error messages to make them memorable, your best bet might be to get management to promulgate a procedure to be followed when the user contacts support about an unfamiliar error message. Make it include grabbing a screen shot of the error message, or writing the error message down. Try to make it short, but sufficient to capture the typical information that you need to diagnose a problem. Since they're good at memorizing a set of steps to follow, give them a memorizable set of steps to follow when they encounter a problem. This might be more successful than trying to push them into a mode of operation they're not good at.

Part of what you're running into is the distinction between packers and mappers (Google 'The Programmer's Stone' for more info). Packers learn by collecting little packets of information, while mappers learn by making mental maps of information. I don't agree with all the directions the originator of the concept has taken it, but I've found it to be a useful distinction. IT types (especially programmers) tend to be mappers, while the user is typically a packer. Businesses tend to run on a Packer mindset. Packers are typically much more comfortable with memorized procedures than with having to think about unfamiliar information(as you noted).

Instead of trying to tweak error messages to make them memorable, your best bet might be to get management to promulgate a procedure to be followed when the user contacts support about an unfamiliar error message. Make it include grabbing a screen shot of the error message, or writing the error message down. Try to make it short, but sufficient to capture the typical information that you need to diagnose a problem. Since they're good at memorizing a set of steps to follow, give them a memorizable set of steps to follow when they encounter a problem. This might be more successful than trying to push them into a mode of operation they're not good at.

Welcome to the world of Bulverism in modern public discourse, where instead of actually answering your opponent's arguments, you assert that their position comes from some nefarious or irrational source, and their arguments can be ignored. This particular use seems to me to have raised Bulverism to something of an art form. By merely labeling anyone who is opposed to a homosexual lifestyle as 'homophobic', they have effectively dismissed those people's reasons for their position.

Of course, it's not like the left is the only ones who use Bulverism. That's the problem - every side uses it. As Lewis says, "Until Bulverism is crushed, reason can play no effective part in human affairs." When everyone uses Bulverism, focusing on the alleged motivations and psychology of their opponent's beliefs, no one actually uses reason to sort through the facts, logic, and assumptions of people's positions (or those few who do get drowned out by everyone else). Lewis again: "For Bulverism is a truly democratic game in the sense that all can play it all day long, and that it gives no unfair advantage to the small and offensive minority who reason."

It's not like the use of Bulverism by one side proves that their side is wrong (especially when all sides are using it). It's just that you don't really have a chance to rationally figure out who is right and who is wrong until Bulverism is no longer taken as a valid argument. And Bulverism isn't a valid argument - it's quite possible for someone's position to be correct despite potential bad motives for believing it (just as it's quite possible for someone to hold an incorrect position despite lofty and good motivations). You don't find out if someone's position is right by speculating on their motivation or psychology. You have to actually think and reason about the assumptions, facts, and logic of a proffered position (and endure their own analysis of your own assumptions, facts, and logic). Unfortunately, speculating about the motivations and psychology of your opponent is much easier, and, alas, often seen as more fun.

When Bulverism becomes as pervasive as it seems to have become, public discourse is no longer carried out on the basis of who can marshal the best facts, logic and argument for their side. It's carried out on the basis of who can portray their side as the most honorably motivated. In short, you no longer argue about who is right, but about who is righteous (and who is demonic). Sound familiar? Ultimately, it becomes a PR and marketing battle, and the prioritization of PR over real effectiveness has its typical corrupting effect.

This probably won't end unless we see a massive grassroots attack on the acceptance of Bulveristic argument. Contemplation of the likelihood of this actually happening are left as an exercise for the reader.

He's not blaming the victim. He's just saying that it's possible for the victim to stop being victimized without having to rely on other people to do it for him. This is, of course, abject and horrifying heresy to some political and sociological viewpoints.

Take a look at Tom DeMarco's Controlling Software Projects. He deals with the issues behind estimating (including that one of the reasons we're so bad at estimating is that we get so little practice - much of what we call "estimating" is actually deadline negotiating). He ends up suggesting a separate measuring and estimating team - probably out of bounds except for fairly large companies, but the book has some good insights.