So, we're deploying Project A on Monday and Tuesday, due to golive Tuesday. First project I'm in my new role for.
Not looking as bad as some: got most things done, and even a little bit of extra testing, to make sure it doesn't immediately blow up some other applications it could do. Haven't worked the last two weekends, and the pace has slackened off for the last couple of working days. Not planning to work this weekend, though I carefully kept it free.
Getting a distinct "It's quiet. Too quiet" feeling.
Still pretty much stand by the main point, which was that the existence of God is an epistemological question that you can't meaningfully ask unless you have a framework to ask it in. The reason most web debates on the subject are futile is that people are trying to ask "does god exist" when they can't meaningfully answer "do desks exist" or "does Kazakhstan exist" or "did Julius Caesar exist".
One think I think was kind of implicit but I maybe should have said explicitly, is that it is actually very easy to prove either the existence of God, or the non-existence of God. All you need to do is to pick the right epistemological framework to ask the question in. As such, "Is There a God" is actually a trivial question. The difficult bits come when you try and integrate that position with reasonable ontological or ethical philosophies.
Something I didn't mention is that the existence of God is actually very handy when it comes to those other aspects of philosophy. You can start with a single premise, and follow that consistently through to create a big bunch of ethical and ontological conclusions.
So, I think lm and CRwM make very useful criticisms in the later discussion about the pure Dawkinsian argument that "there is insufficient evidence of God, so as a rational person I cannot believe it". That's fine, but if you then start saying that you believe in human rights, that mathematics is consistent, that physical laws apply uniformly across the universe, that a new-born infant has human rights but a chicken does not etc etc; then you are replacing one unprovable belief with dozens or hundreds of unprovable beliefs.
So, looks like the Met are continuing their media management tactics that were so successful with the de Menezes parka: splash an accusation over the front pages, knowing the retraction will barely register. This time it's the alleged child porn possessed by one of the Forest Gate arrestees.
CPS rules out Forest Gate child porn chargesWeb
Prosecutors have advised police not to bring child pornography charges against the man who was shot by police during a counter-terrorist raid earlier this year, it was announced tonight.
A Crown Prosecution Service spokesman said Mohammed Abdul Kahar would face no charges over allegations that 44 indecent images had been found on electronic equipment at his home.
Mr Kahar, 23, was shot in the shoulder when 250 police officers raided properties in Lansdown Road, Forest Gate, in east London, in June.
No need to change it: entry on the Daily WTF. I'm undecided on this one: I've seen plenty of colossal fuckups caused by attempts at grand rewriting, and lots of equally colossal wastes of time and resources caused by not rewriting obsolete stuff.
The thing is, the writeup fails to cite any actual problems caused by this odd decision. If he'd ended saying "and so it took 200 man-hours to fix a spelling mistake" or "so the whole Eastern seaboard system went down for two week" then it would definitely count, but he doesn't, and the thought of rewriting some vast, monstrous hybrid of accounting/loan-calculating/POS software gives me the jitters. Still, can't see why they can't just recompile the COBOL for x86 instead of emulating.
|< "Thought Typhoons" | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >|