h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

*thoughtfully frowns*

I know that it isn't the part you are working on, but does it seem to you that at least the book section could use some more info on what events and characters are portrayed in what way in the different works, and possibly less personal critique on the overall quality? Maybe a short summary to accompany each paragraph? I have read Once and Future King, so I know about that, but I've never read A Connetticut Yankee in King Authur's Court, and while I would doubt that a book entitled something along those lines that would do Authurian Legend all the justice it is due, I think a slight explanation of what the story was really about (I suspect that it had little to do with actual legend at all, am I right?) would be more fitting than informing the readers of H2G2 of Mark Twain's unfair opinions of the Engligh in general. (He had a bone to pick with everybody, actually.)

In the Computer Vandalisim article, are you going to mention how overly hasty programming often leaves overly generous loopholes for hacker attacks of the harmful variety? (i.e. Microsoft's email program... Outlook? Is that the one? I never touch the filthy, disgusting thing.)

I was never one to reduce effective arguing to a precise formula (though I've seen many formulas that work quite well, if you don't know what you're doing). If you just plug in the variables X, Y and Z of the argument and voila, here comes the final answer! It ruins all of the fun, of you ask me.

Good points, thank you

Yes, I suppose a brief synopsis of at least a couple of the books would be in order... but Twain's work really is just a diatribe against all things British.. with a loose story line about a Yank who raises an army to defeat Arthur yadda yadda.. but I will add a few lines about it

As much as I would like to discuss programming loopholes, especially in Lookout Express, I am primarily going to talk about DDOS, although the zombification of many personal computers is rarely the result of loopholes in e-mail client software. Actually, the kinds of Trojan scripts that enslave computers usually is found in IRC chat apps. Most security loopholes can be easily managed, if not by 'patches' then by users practising safe surfing and e-mail habits.. I may do another article on firewalls and security settings. BTW, what e-mail client do you use?

Regarding reasoned argument: I fully agree that formulaic approaches tend to stultify free conversation - however, there is, or should be, a certain amount of critical thinking applied in many cases where it is sadly lacking. The knowledge and understanding of a few of the tools of reasoned argument would not be out of place in a reasonable discussion. The fun would still be there, and would benefit from not being obscured by stupidity and fallacious argument.

I'm a hotmail user, so I just do it all online. (But I don't subscribe MSN... eeeeew. I said it. I feel dirty now...) The only problem this has ever caused is that a very stupid friend of mine would always ask to check her email from my dorm room, and try to set up my netscape to recognize her school email address so she could "check" it. Of course I'd point out that she could check that email account online as well, but she always whined that it would be "so much easier" this way-- especially since I certainly wasn't using it. ("You live in the next dorm over, go check your email on your own damn computer!") (This was the same girl that became irrationally paranoid of cookies one day and started getting hysteric about how "they" were watching her every move online, and demanded to know where they were so she could delete them. "I already deleted a bunch of files in netscape, but I wasn't sure if those were the cookies-- oh no! Now the cookies won't even let me ON the internet!!!" *groan*)

People really need to start getting into the habit of using firewalls, and I think an article about them would be an excellent idea. (I know just enough about them to know what they are and the basics of how to use the one I have.) Ah, firewalls: the e-condom.

I've known people who blatantly abuse the powers of reasoned argument. I always think back to this one guy I knew who blew a hole in every single possible argument. Every side of an argument has a weak spot (that's why it's an argument, after all) usually, but not always, as a result of human nature or the nature of the future (that is, no one knows what will happen in the future unflinchingly-- something will always go wrong) and he always found it and picked at it. If the topic was Deja Vu, for example, he'd say that it had never been proven. (Well, duh, why else would anyone be talking about it?) But how could you refute that when he'd sit there and say that it was possible (i.e. unflinchingly true) that everyone who had ever "had" Deja Vu was either delirious or purposely lying? Instant stalemate. The argument has been reduced to a kindergartener's mental levels: the dreaded "is not; are too" syndrome.

And yet, to state that everyone very well could have been delirious or purposely lying about being there in that room at the very moment, arguing about this will get you some pretty weird looks. Go figure.

I knew a guy like that too! I wonder if it was the same guy?

Yeah, I know exactly what you mean. People like that are just infuriating. But understand they are more interested in winning, than in finding the truth, or even agreeing to disagree. If you find yourself embroiled in a 'discussion' with such a person, just agree with everything they say, in as condescending manner as possible. That really p****s them off!.

Be that as it probably will be, there still are certain advantages to being skeptical. BTW, a true skeptic is also skeptical of his or her own ideas/beliefs/theories. True skepticism is not negative, it is keeping an open mind.

What I am talking about is the essence of science, not debate - which is merely political. Critical thinking, informal logic, is not difficult, but it is not taught in most schools, (it seems), and is definitely not a common commodity in our society, it is a skill that offers something of a choice between a life based on truth, or one based on lies and foolish illusions.

If he (your argumentative friend) really said with a straight face that anyone who had a deja vu experience was either delerious or lying, the poor schnook obviously never had one himself. If he also said that deja vu had never been 'proven', by the same token, how could anyone prove they had any subjective experience at all? You just don't waste your breath with someone like that.

Well, got to go.. I have to start work on the DDOS article.. which will touch on the use of firewalls, security settings, etc...

for now

BTW, 'e-condom' LOL

I asked flat out asked the shmuck a few times out right what HE thought about what was being argued about, and he'd give a curt answer (either agreeing or disagreeing with the topic on hand and/or his own argument) but then stated that he was there to merely argue the case of those who could not be here or are uncapable of arguing due to physical or mental disability (i.e. everyone else in the class was too stupid to state a valid opinon of their own). Aw, C'mon! Sitting here, making everyone severely pissed off because we can't seem to progress any intellegent conversation past the "wait a second, that's wrong" point makes you some sort of avenger for the helpless and downtrodden???
I have no problem with arguing on behalf of those who cannot be there at the time, but this guy was too much.

Is there a specific word that describes an argument for the purpose of learning the truth rather than an argument to proove that someone is a better debater than the other? The sure ought to be...

Yay, skeptisicim!!!

'Discourse' which means 'the act of the understanding, by which it passes from premises to consequences' - but that is rather lame

'Discussion' which is the examination of a matter by arguments for and against - but that somehow begs the question, and discussions can be heated, boring, etc..

I tend to like the old word, 'palaver' You know, from 'Western' movies: 'Ah'm gonna mosey over ta th' saloon and have me a palaver with Miss Kitty'

It means 'a talk, parley, conference, discussion, etc.' Unfortunately it also means 'profuse or idle talk'

The reason I like it is that it has the word 'pal' in it, which kind of makes it more friendly like, hey pardner?

If ever there was a specific word to describe an argument solely for discovering the truth, I'm sure the lawyers of the world would have had it expunged...

Arg. Remind me not to read any of your replies to this conversation early in the morning, before I am good and awake!

Perhaps there are words for it in other languages, this "finding of the truth through rational discussion", that can be borrowed (ala Deja Vu). Becuase apperently someone really screwed up back in the annals of english dictation, because they forgot to coin an appropiate word to describe this in the english tongue!

Hi, i know this is late in your thread but i have a few ideas and comments on some of what your talking about.
Firstly, we "know" very little about the universe. In all truth science is very much based around theory and the way things interact (which is just interpretations of what we see). So your dislike of psychic phenomena should meen that you doubt almost all of advanced physics (have you ever seen real hard evidence if atoms that disprove without doubt paranormal explanations). I'm not an avid believer in the paranormal, but I believe that most theories in science and paranormal studies are valid possiblities.
Anyways that was worthless. I just got a thought here's a theory for you:
There's a belief that humans have what is called a collective unconcious (Jungian theory if I remember correctly). Now what if the reason you get premonitions is because you are having a memory of that unconcious. How could you have a memory before it happens? Well what if your entire life was a memory of the collective unconcious, and it is just living through it's entire memory for some reason. This is a new one for me so it's not exactly well thought out but....
And I've rambled too much. Just needed to get some thoughts out. Thanks for bearing with me.

'One aim of the physical sciences has been to give an exact picture of the material world. One achievement of physics in the twentieth century has been to prove that aim is unattainable'
Jacob Bronowski

Hi MITH

You may have the wrong impression: I doubt if either Chencrea or myself 'dislike' psychic phenomena. It is possible that we both have had what some would call psychic experiences. We do seem to share a dislike of fallacious reasoning, and of argument for argument's sake.

I am, as previously mentioned, an open minded skeptic. I prefer critical thinking to gullibility, but that does not mean I just flat out doubt everything - it means I insist on some reasonable proof. Sure, if you get literal about it, science cannot really 'prove' anything about the fundamental nature of reality. But that does not mean we should accept just any old half-baked notion, either. We have brains, after all, and whether that is a result of evolution or divine plan, I suspect we are better off if we use them.

Science is not infallible. That characteristic is reserved for God, Saints, and the Roman Catholics' Pontiff Scientists don't 'believe' in science. Scientists are humans, and they believe in all kinds of things, some less rational than others. Skeptics don't 'believe' in skepticism, either. Like science, it is a way of examining our perceptions, our thoughts and ideas, and the thoughts and ideas of others.

And there is a problem with the word 'theory', too. In popular terms, 'theory' means belief or speculation - C. Jung's 'theory' of shared consciousness, or metaphysical 'theories' such as creationism, or my 'theory' about h2g2 conquering the universe In scientific terms, a 'theory' has to be empirical, falsifiable, and have predictive power. This does not mean a theory is infallible, only that it is highly probable. And that is the most we can ever say with any degree of certainty, ever since Heisenberg and friends hit the scene

It is indeed possible that our entire lives are merely some kind of memory of the collective or shared consciousness. But how would we go about testing that idea, and of what possible practical value would it be to discover it were valid? I should think the majority of the world's population would either go mad or commit mass suicide. Some of C. Jung's writings were interesting, and very evocative - almost beautiful, but he seemed to have difficulty separating fact from fantasy, (of course, Jungians would say there is no difference)

If you are interested in reason and perception, read 'Descartes' Error', by Antonio Demasio A different perspective than C. Jung, and based on current, empirical data rather than myth and speculation.

BTW, 'rambling' is .. It's what we all do, and it's what makes me keep on comin' back to h2g2

Cenchrea - (see, I haven't forgotten you! I just had to type that out while it was perking through the neurons !)

Are you awake yet? Here's a to jump-start your brain!

Yes, there probably is a single word for 'finding (or seeking) truth through rational discussion' - after all, the Inuit have something like 50 different words to describe varieties of snow. I would expect to find such a word perhaps in an African pygmy dialect, or more likely an extinct North American People's dialect. If I were still in touch with my Linguistics professor, I would ask him. I also wonder if the ancient Greeks had such a word, and, if so, why it did not migrate into English.

So there's a worthwhile project for you. Find the secret word.

*sips coffee*

*mysterious whirring noise*

*sleepy smile* Hi Mith, nice for you to join us.

*whirring* Er... Yes. What Taliesin said. Ditto. I sincerely doubt that I could have said it better myself.


(I am, to my shockingly recent regret, very unfamiliar with Jungian theory, so you guys are on your own here. I will however add that I do not dislike psychic or paranormal theory, as Taliesin so graciously pointed out on my behalf. I will admit that it is irrational, but rationale is so often an overrated virtue, anyway. (To regress: How many people do you know that are very rational, but are also complete jerks that you wouldn't wish on your own worst enemy?) I fully intend to defend the right of truly deserving mysteries to remain unsolved so long as they see fit. )


I'd bet my money that such a word would more likely be found in cultures that have been repeatedly looked to for their legacy in logic, like the ancient Greeks. The choice of Tribal African Pygmy Dialect is an interesting one, though...

I have sent out a few 'queries' regarding the 'secret word' I have a friend who is a retired Anthropology professor -- he might know, and I will ask him when he returns from the coast in a few weeks.

Meanwhile, I have now completed the second of two articles for the computer virus project, and am starting work on my very own neuro article. Wish me luck