Monthly Archives: May 2005

Hacker


Hacker-man, Hacker-man
Does whatever a hacker can
pwns fake websites, any size
Catches phishers, just like flies
Look out! There goes the Hacker-man!

Is he strong? Listen, Bud!
He’s got caffinated blood.
Can he type from a chair?
Take a look over there.
Hey there, there sits the Hacker-man!

In the chill of night,
At the scene of the crime
Like a streak of light
He arrives just in time

Hacker-man, Hacker-man
Friendly neighborhood Hacker-man
Wealth and fame, he’s ignored
Action is his reward

To him, life is a great big bang-up
Wherever there’s a scam-up
You’ll find the Hacker-man!

–Slashdot

Personality and Style

What are the differences between Personality and Style? When does one end and the other begin? I had an interesting conversation with a friend yesterday and this is his opinion

Personality and Style are two completely different things. When you see a man on the road who is dressed well, thats his Style. This is regardless of the fact that the way he carries himself makes the dresss look better. That is still Style.

Personality is when you get to know that person well. You find out what kind of person he is, then Personality plays a part. Is he knowledgeable? Easy-going? One step deeper towards getting to know the person will bring out the person’s character

I hope I havd transcribed his ideas faithfully. This was my reply

Style is the material substance a person wears. If one sees a guy on the street wearing a blud shirt and combs his hair in a certain way, thats his style. However, his Personality seeps through when you see the overall picture: the way he carries himself in that attire, his look, etc. For example, he may make that attire look better than it is by having a confident aura about him.

Character is when you get to know that person. Is is kind-hearted? Selfish? Humerous? This is where Character comes in.

What do you think?

Richard Wager

Richard Wager occupies a unique position in the Western cultural pantheon. His operas could arguably be said to the highpoint of Western classical tradition, yet his music draws as much hostility as adulation. In part this arises from the way Wagner reworked the traditional operatic form and stretched tonality to its limits. But the hostility also arises from Wagner’s venomous anti-semitism, which for many taints his music. In Wagner and Philosophy Bryan Magee tries to make sense of both the man and his music by placing Wagner in the context of nineteenth century thought. Magee possesses both a deep sympathy for Wagner’s music and an independence of mind that allows him to rethink much of the hostility to Wagner.

‘The repellent nature of Wagner’s anti-semitism’, Magee observes, ‘is not a licence to misrepresent it.’ Much of the discussion of Wagner’s politics is ‘anachronistic’ because it reads back into Wagner’s life interpretations that may hold in our time but did not hold in his. Living as we do in the shadow of the Holocaust, most of us find anti-semitism repugnant. In Wagner’s time, however, it was unexceptional. Many leading prewar artists, from Dostoevsky to TS Eliot, were deeply anti-semitic. Certainly, Wagner’s anti-semitism was more virulent than most but, as Magee shows, there is no reason to consider him a proto-fascist.

????

The art of finding bugs

Bugs have evolved a long way since the days of beetles and err….well……bugs! now, the notion of bugs brings to mind computers, languages, tools, and most important of all, fustrations to most ppl. oh, well at least IMHO. Take this for instance, 6 hours taken to find out that one sentence was wrong in that teeny-weeny jumbled up bunch of database statements called sql. And 8 hours taken to find out that a value should not be floored but be ceiling(ed). Now can you beat that? :S

Descartes

Descartes invented the graph (Cartesian co-ordinates is an adjective of his name), analytical or co-ordinate geometry and numerous other mathematical principles.

Likewise, in philosophy, Descartes is considered the father of modern philosophy. He believed in this vision: there is nothing that cannot be obtained by logical and rational conclusion.

Descartes came to this conclusion by observing a few very important concepts in Mathematics. He observed that everything in mathematics can be broken down to basic elementary logical steps which have a simple, straight-forward, logical conclusion. For example, the shortest distance between two points is straight line. He then used this conclusion as the premise for subsequent arguments which had an equally rational and logical conclusion. Following our preceding example, the time taken to travel between two points in a straight line must be the minimum.

Descartes loved this form of argument which is prevalent in all mathematics. And he rationalized thus-: if this form of argument can be applied to mathematics and science, why cannot it be applied to other fields including philosophy? And that is exactly what he attempted to do.

He contemplated three different forms of thinking. The first form is the power of observation by sight. However, he found out that observation by sight is not entirely reliable. The building that looks red in the morning looks black in the evening. If so, then what is the actual colour of the building? Is observation by site to be relied upon for such scientific observations? He decided no and went on to experiment with other methods.

The second method he decided to delve into is his consciousness. Can I be absolutely certain that what I am doing is actually what I am doing and not what I am dreaming of doing? No! I could not be absolutely certain of that fact. At times, it appears to me that I am doing something just to find out that I was actually dreaming of accomplishing it. In other words, it was nothing more than a vivid dream.

However, I must admit that the occasions on which I have actually managed to remember my dreams upon waking up are so infrequent and far between that I can count them with one hand.

To continue on Descartes arguments, unable to come up with any other arguments an in utter despair, Descartes modified the second argument: What if the errors and illusions I have are not my fault but are due to some higher order which controls them? What if the higher order is the ultimate authority and that I have no say over what eh decides? What will happen then?

If that is the case, then the best solutions would be to assume that what your consciousness says is true. I may have had some experiences and m not sure if the experiences occurred in reality or in a dream. However the one thing I am sure of is that I had an experience. This is a certainty which cannot be refuted and thus must be proven true, like an axiom. It this follows that the consciousness is a fact and so is the notion that I exists since consciousness cannot exist without the existence of being and consequently, the existence of oneself and of consciousness are interlinked and interdependent on each other. Descartes came up with beautiful and elegant phrase for it ‘cogito ergo sum’ or ‘I think therefore I am’.

Following this conclusion towards its ending, we know that we are not perfect in anyway but on the contrary, are filled with flaws. But we also know what an ideal human being should be, namely, perfect and ideal in every sense and inextricably linked with his consciousness as a human being. We usually denote this idea human being as God. Thus we presume that god exists [Descartes extrapolated this to knowing that god exists, how do you come to that conclusion?]. Provided we do our job, god will take care of the outcome, which he will do by presenting me with an outcome which my consciousness clearly recognizes as true.

This is very similar to the Hindu philosophy; do your karma and whatever the result is the one you have worked for. In other words, reap as you sow. this raises an important question, did Descartes come into contact with Indian philosophy? If so, then how? Wherefrom? However, this is besides the scope of this article as answering this question will lead us to the history of civilizations.