The child we are being asked to help is on immuno-suppressants, and is, of course, required to be shielded from germs as much as possible. You're just not going to get a stock photo of baby hugging a goat.
So you're saying they didn't intentionally compose this picture in such a way as to increase the likelihood that people will donate?
This is not hacker news. There are lots of kids out there who are in just as much need of help. This one just happens to have a father who works on an open source product.
With these theory of yours, we might go around helping no one, because you can always find people more needy or helpless than the one we are helping. Nobody said this was the last time, they are doing charity. It is one step at a time. I am sure nobody is helping this child because, his father works on an open source product. If you replace the father with a fisherman or farmer, I am sure people would sympathize the same way and donate the same amount they might be doing now.
A Cynic is one who knows the price of everything and value of nothing. - Oscar Wilde
That's called "speaking one's own mind" as opposed to corporate doublespeak devoid of any meaningul sense, so common in corporate meeting rooms.
The beauty of not being paid for what you do is the luxury of being able not to bother with bullshit.
And yes, security is overrated. All major "security" problems have always been DOS attacks that have NOTHING to do with "breaking" into anything. The biggest problem with computer "security" is the widespread adoption of "anti-virus" softwares. That plague does more harm than viruses themselves.
(Do you think soldiers, chefs, car salespeople, and senators talk especially differently, when they're not in the limelight?)
If anything, this little statement has entirely too few four-letter words to be a really believeable engineer rant.
Of course, if you want to see someone as immature it always helps to rip a single statement entirely out of its conversational context. I frankly have no idea whether Torvalds is being sensible or stupid, brilliant or childish here. It depends on who is asking what.
The classic nurture side of the nature vs. nurture debate. The problem with your argument is that it's simply not backed up by evidence. There are plenty of cases of children who grow up in virtually identical environments, yet go on to have widely varying interests. My brother and I grew up experiencing basically all the same stimuli: same parents, same TV shows, same music, same magazines, same everything. As adults we couldn't be more different.
There's more to this picture than just stimulus response/valuation/categorization.
Just wanted to point out. You and your brother cannot possibly have had the same stimuli. You were his elder brother (say) and he was younger to you. People sometimes resist each others ideas. My friend took to piano lessons because his brother hated it. Sibling rivalry factors ever so little especially at the early stages of growth, and it tips everything later on.
Technically true, but sophist's experience is consistent with scientific findings. Sibling studies have repeatedly shown that genes do account for a significant amount of variation in behavior. While environment plays a role as well, the "blank slate" theory is flat wrong.
For an overview of the evidence, I recommend The Blank Slate by Steven Pinker.
As far as I can tell, no one here has posited the blank slate theory.
My point was that the conclusions we come to about the world around us are the largest factor in determining where we end up on the spectrum between mediocre and extraordinary.
If we really thought DNA was more important than our beliefs, we would spend less time trying to correct and inform each other on Hacker News and more time getting our genes sequenced.
Well there is one easy way to scientificaly prove whether genes or DNA determine a certain behaviour. While I agree with the nice explenation given by the main comentator I do think that he has largly ignored the role that genes play.
Twin studies have shown, as far as intelligence is concerned, that when two identical twins are raised in two different environment their intelligence is quite similar.
Now who plays the greater role? Well who came first the chicken or the egg?
Was it the environment who turned on a certain gene, or was it the gene who went to find a certain environment?
When children start education most are the same. Most watch television, most go to school. Does the child prefer watching television because of his genes or because of the environment?
I personaly can not doubt that both play a role, but also I can not doubt that in most circumstances the environement tends to play a greater role. Nonetheless neither can be discaunted and both are crucial.
I think you're right, but what would it mean if the more is chaos? Have you seen the Price is Right game "Plinko" where identical starting positions lead to totally different results? What if the more isn't nature or nurture, just pure chaos.
