“Works Great Around the House”
Came across this review when looking for noise canceling headphones:
This is an AMAZING product. I purchased them because while trying to listen to my classical music around the house, my wife kept NAGGING me to do the dishes or take out the trash. I kept telling her that these are part of her womanly duties and that I would have no part in this. Even after explaining this to her, she kept demanding that I do these chores. Since purchasing these headphones I can now enjoy my music and while I can see her mouth moving, I can not hear a word. These are god's gift to men everywhere. I strongly encourage you buy them!
Final edition: Twilight of the American newspaper
We no longer imagine the newspaper as a city or the city as a newspaper. Whatever I may say in the rant that follows, I do not believe the decline of newspapers has been the result solely of computer technology or of the Internet. The forces working against newspapers are probably as varied and foregone as the Model-T Ford and the birth-control pill. We like to say that the invention of the internal-combustion engine changed us, changed the way we live. In truth, we built the Model-T Ford because we had changed; we wanted to remake the world to accommodate our restlessness. We might now say: Newspapers will be lost because technology will force us to acquire information in new ways. In that case, who will tell us what it means to live as citizens of Seattle or Denver or Ann Arbor? The truth is we no longer want to live in Seattle or Denver or Ann Arbor. Our inclination has led us to invent a digital cosmopolitanism that begins and ends with “I.” Careening down Geary Boulevard on the 38 bus, I can talk to my my dear Auntie in Delhi or I can view snapshots of my cousin’s wedding in Recife or I can listen to girl punk from Glasgow. The cost of my cyber-urban experience is disconnection from body, from presence, from city.
Richard Rodriguez, “Final edition: Twilight of the American newspaper”
Harper’s Magazine, November 02009
The Chinese Room Argument
The Chinese Room argument, devised by John Searle, is an argument against the possibility of true artificial intelligence. The argument centers on a thought experiment in which someone who knows only English sits alone in a room following English instructions for manipulating strings of Chinese characters, such that to those outside the room it appears as if someone in the room understands Chinese. The argument is intended to show that while suitably programmed computers may appear to converse in natural language, they are not capable of understanding language, even in principle. Searle argues that the thought experiment underscores the fact that computers merely use syntactic rules to manipulate symbol strings, but have no understanding of meaning or semantics. Searle's argument is a direct challenge to proponents of Artificial Intelligence, and the argument also has broad implications for functionalist and computational theories of meaning and of mind. As a result, there have been many critical replies to the argument.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “The Chinese Room Argument”
Men turn tables on regime by donning headscarves and dresses
Hundreds of pictures of men in women's clothing have been posted online by Iranian opposition supporters in mockery of what they say is a crude attempt by the authorities to humiliate and discredit a reformist student leader by photographing him in a head scarf and chador.
“Men turn tables on regime by donning headscarves and dresses”
The Independent, December 14, 02009
What Is Living and What Is Dead in Social Democracy?
For the last thirty years, in much of the English-speaking world (though less so in continental Europe and elsewhere), when asking ourselves whether we support a proposal or initiative, we have not asked, is it good or bad? Instead we inquire: Is it efficient? Is it productive? Would it benefit gross domestic product? Will it contribute to growth? This propensity to avoid moral considerations, to restrict ourselves to issues of profit and loss—economic questions in the narrowest sense—is not an instinctive human condition. It is an acquired taste.
Tony Judt, “What Is Living and What Is Dead in Social Democracy?”
The New York Review of Books, December 17, 02009