RIP Philo

Thought crimes ain't so.

Neither crimes nor worth thinking about. Or why censorship can be bad idea.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6474553,00.html

Those who are willing to sacrfice their life for a little less thinking deserve neither.
Permalink Send private email (100 + 85)/2 
March 14th, 2007 4:50am
It seems it all worked out for the best here.
Permalink Practical Economist 
March 14th, 2007 8:28am
> Four other people were injured in the Sunday night blast

Not all for the best.

If a scientist looked at the data he'd say ... 45 people killed before security measures took effect in 2003, 1 person (who strapped explosives on himself irregardless of censorship) killed after security measure ... hmm, sounds like nonrandom effect. The scientist couldn't tell you whether it was worth it however.
Permalink bleaty heartsheep 
March 14th, 2007 9:43am
Would he call it causation or mere correlation?
Permalink Send private email Aaron F Stanton 
March 14th, 2007 10:16am
Depends on what the scientist believes .. but really if you saw data like this:

before drunk driving laws enacted, X number of car fatalities

after drunk driving laws enacted, X/2 number of car fatalities


... wouldn't you say "the drunk driving laws caused a decrease in car fatalities"?

Now, being a good scientist is looking only at the data not the whatness behind the data, so sub in "terrorist website in cafe law" in for "drunk driving law" and make your own conclusion about what's cause and what's not.

It's not that hard.