Steven Pinker on the Myth of Violence

No two (relatively) liberal democracies have ever waged a war against each other.

I've always thought that this is very widely accepted fact. Where I live, higher education is free (and in fact, you get social security of 500 euros ($640) a month, lower rent, government-backed loans, etc. if you're a student) and university admissions are based on objective tests to select the best students (everyone who finishes Highschool will participate in national testing. Grades come from bell curve and graders don't know whose paper they're grading... or even the highschool of the student). It seems obvious to me that a system like this will result in more social justice and less inequality (Nearly everyone who has the will and skill can climb the social ladder regardless of who their parents where) but people in USA decided that the gain is simply not worth the price (=more taxes, less personal liberty, more nannystate...).

Why so? Again, I assumed this had always been both well-known and intentional but if it isn't... is there something that makes Europe especially appalling in this regard or is it just so appalling to hear that USA isn't at the top?

I'm an engineer and been atheist my whole life, so I don't believe in horoscopes/crystals/palm reading/etc... However, I've found that I immensely enjoy occasional tarot sessions. I don't believe any of that outside those sessions but every once in a while, it's nice to meet someone more spiritual than I am, light a few candles, smoke a bit of tobacco from a bong, engage in the whole tarot ritual (sliding fingers on the deck, etc.), have her read the cards for me and then reflect on how to interpret that all based on my history and expectations for the future.

It's almost therapeutic to completely suspend your disbelief every once in a while and get in touch with the spiritual side (I think that there is a certain mental state that every human - no matter how skeptic, etc. - can achieve if they want to... and it's pretty pleasant, really). As long as you keep it at that and don't ever start to think that you could actually make important decisions based on all that, it's pretty much the most harmless source of enjoyment that there is.

So, if people want that and what they get is that someone wiretaps their phones, installs hidden cameras to their apartment, etc... it's not okay to say "Well, what did they expect? Of course they're going to get scammed!"

Magnetic field has different strength in different area so you could (assuming no major changes have occurred) approximate distance from the polar region in addition to knowing the direction. Add to that a landmark or two ("2 days from the shore" or something) and you might actually have relatively good knowledge of where you are. Of course it isn't the exact spot but while I know nothing about sea turtles, I doesn't sound impossible that erring a dozen miles is acceptable and then they just use sound or whatever to locate each other after days of searching.

When Elop took over Nokia I was still a software engineering student and I currently work for a company that develops smartphone apps.

When Nokia was still developing Meego, there was a lot of buzz about it all around the world: Other students (who're now also developers) mentioned it quite often, considered installing it on their netbooks, etc... Nokia was making very good progress at creating the ecosystem. Whether or not it would have soared like an eagle or crashed to the ground will remain forever unseen but what we do know is that Nokia and MS have utterly failed in building ecosystem around what they decided to go with.

That said, the article you linked was pretty interesting. I think that some parts were worse than others (I nearly laughed when I read how good Elop is at transparency) but it's still a nice point of view.

It's true that claiming that fertilized egg is a person doesn't have much to back it up from science and it's instead a claim that's based in religion. However, I think that if we built discussion around "What do we - as a society - want to base personhood on? Religion or something else?" and then - for those who want to base it on religion "Is that what [your holy text] actually says about this very subject?", it would be more reasonable than it's now.

Of course you might say "The other guys are so insane fundamentalist that they won't listen to any reasoning, no matter how we approach that!" in which you might be partially right... But of course, public discourse never aims to convert the evangelists of either side but rather to sway the general audience. Also, if we go with that claim, we might as well say "Okay, it's just ridiculous to talk about this in media/news/debates/congress/etc., as nobody will change their views... So let's never return to this subject again". I do see some appeal in that approach but I'm still too idealistic to completely accept it. :)

I can't wrap my head around that logic. Driving, smoking, drinking alcohol, gun ownership, voting, etc... there are plenty of examples where legal status is more than a boolean value.

That said, there is only one thing that should really matter in abortion discussions: Whether the fetus is a person or not. If it is a person, abortion is murder and you clearly can't murder someone just because you don't like their existence (or even if their existence is a health risk for you). If it's not a living person separate from the mother, abortion clearly isn't murder but more equivalent to a lot of other, already legal medical and cosmetic procedures (plastic surgery, cutting away the vermiform appendix, etc.).

I disagree with Ron Paul when he said that life begins at conception and that it's a scientific statement. It isn't scientific statement (there isn't any scientific consensus about that) but it most certainly is a factual claim, that is boolean and either true or false, depending on our definition of life/personhood. I personally don't consider a fetus in its early stages to be a person (it can't have feelings, etc.) but can see how a point could be made that it becomes a person before the moment of birth, so I think that the current system of "Abortion is legal for X weeks/months but not after that" is pretty optimal.

That's also what I hate on "our" side of the abortion debate: When pro-life ("the other guys") say "Fetus is a person/human/living being/etc. so you can't just kill it if you find it inconvenient", we call ourselves pro-choice and say "Sure we can. Women should have a right to choose to end its life!" instead of saying "That's fair, but it isn't really a person at that point".

I've been diagnosed with recurring depression and there is quite a lot of that in my family line (father is currently medicated after years long serious depression, etc.). There have been times I've been depressed and not went for treatment and there have been times I've went to a therapist... and there is a world of difference. Of course, depression affects individuals in different ways so everything I say might not apply to everyone but I'll try to speak on a relatively general level.

First of all... "Time, improving life circumstances, and new friends are what end depression"... Those aren't the kind of things that happen during a depression! When you can't force yourself to get into the job (a job you normally love, really want to keep, etc.) in time (or at all) for months and even if you get in, you can't concentrate enough to do anything complex (e.g., coding) efficiently... When you don't feel any interest to meet friends, girlfriend, etc... there's pretty high chance of getting fired, failing your classes, destroying your relationships, etc. which will make the depression deeper. Time might take care of it but if you allow that situation to go on for months first (untreated, my depression usually lasts about 4-5 months), you've probably nearly ruined your life first (been there, done that).

So, if you're depressed, not getting treatment is usually stupid. There are always medications but studies have shown that if you treat your depression with drugs, you're likely to get depressed again sooner and the next depression is likely to be deeper... until the medicines don't have enough effect anymore.

As for what happens in therapy... I've been to quite a few sessions and I've never had to talk about my childhood and whatnot. There are quite a few schools of therapy but Freudian, Jungian, etc. exist only in movies and as fashionable things to try out for the rich people. The therapist I usually go to helps me do damage control: Helps me take the steps that prevent me from ruining my life (Talk with my boss about my need to work at a reduced capacity for a while instead of me just not showing up for work half the time, etc.) at first and then helps me claw my way out of the pit (prioritize the massive bulk of tasks that seem impossible to handle, get small successes on which to build, etc.), helps me find the things that deepen my depression and find ways to solve them (Your home is filthy? You don't think you're going to lose your job immediately? Well, get a cleaner to visit it once a week until you're up and going again!... type of practical solutions)... Nothing magic but just things that you can't get done without help if you're depressed.

Do you mean "Highlight people who've been convicted of such crimes before"? If we, as a society, want that kind of ability, surely we don't need that kind of technology. Let's just brand all criminals with hot iron or a tattoo into their forehead and make sure that someone checks every 5 years or so that they've not gone through plastic surgery or such.

Of course, we don't want to do that (and for good reasons) so I can't help but think "WTF?" whenever I hear people think that new technology will "enable" that (as if it wasn't already possible) and that it'd be somehow desirable...

(Of course, if you just mean "Highlight people who're hiding in a bush, for example", ignore this response)

First of all, he is supposed to point out *real* trade barriers. When Australian government provides information about the numerous problems of using USA based cloud services from Australia (connection problems, lag, ability of USA government to snoop on it, etc.), he's not obligated to complain...

That said, if it was coming from any other country, I could go "Just some government official overstepping a bit. It happens. Nobody will listen. Why is this newsworthy?" but USA has *very* strong track-record about massive behind-the-scenes lobbying in issues similar to this one (see: USA influence on other countries' copyright legislation, etc.) and whenever something actually gets out, it's probably just the tip of the iceberg.