After I mailed in my 23" cinema display and Apple received it at their repair center, they decided to cancel my repair and give me a bunch of grief about it not being in warranty. This is the third time they gave me grief about the same issue. I'm still right, and they still owe me warranty repairs. And they still acknowledged this the previous times, and promised me warranty coverage. (They advertised that you could buy macbook + cinema display + macbook applecare and the applecare would cover the display too. They say this was a mistake and it's only supposed to work with other computers but not macbooks. Too bad. They must honor the terms on their website at time of sale. It's only an $80 value, so I don't see why they keep bothering me about it.)

This time they are refusing to admit that they are obligated to give me warranty coverage as advertised. And the contact info I have for the people I spoke with previously no longer works. However, they made some excuse about "it's only one month out of the three month coverage you are entitled to after the last repair" and repaired it anyway, so I stopped trying to reason with them.

On the upside, it works now. It had stopped turning on. Now it does. Yay!

Oh and the same day I got my display back (today), I also received a second box for mailing it in. Silly Apple is a bit disorganized I guess. For my previous repair they also managed to send me two shipping boxes.

Despite this hassle, I will continue to buy Apple products, which are wonderful.

My 23" Apple Cinema Display, which I love, needed repairs (under warranty). I sent it off at 2pm on Monday. It arrived back at 10am on Wednesday. That's less than 48 hours that I had to suffer with an inferior display. The actual repair took them ~3 hours, the rest was shipping. They replaced the whole screen part of the display, no questions asked, no problem (some pixels on top were darker/discolored). Thanks Apple!

- most people do as well as convention/tradition. and experience it as easy to do so.

- most people have ideas about how to do things better. some proportion of those ideas seem obvious, easy to implement

- most people consequently think tradition is nice for "most people" who aren't as bright as they are, but clearly they are brighter than it, since they do it easily plus have good ideas for improvements. the people who made the tradition must not have been as bright as them, since they missed the obvious improvements.

- the real fact of the matter is that traditions are wiser than people, and most of the supposed obvious improvements are either bad ideas, or are difficult to implement and the person doesn't actually know how to make it happen

- so the basic issue is taking for granted what we have, and underestimating the difficulty of having more based on the ease of the taken-for-granted stuff

- this is not a mistake *everyone* makes. Edmund Burke emphatically did not make it.

- and there are some people who make the mistake more. for example ivory tower academics are prone to this.

- regardless, 'most people are dumb' is a common sentiment. but this particular reason behind it -- that they are not making the "obvious" improvements on convention that the speaker has thought of -- is a mistake.

- the 'most people are dumb' sentiment often comes up in discussion of religion. in particular it is sometimes suggested that most religious people are dumb. in the ballpark of 90% of Americans are religious, so that's most Americans.

- atheism consists of a number of apparent improvements on religion, most of which consist of throwing stuff out, and most of which seem obvious to the sort of evangelical atheist who says most religious people are dumb. don't pray, don't listen to sermons, don't be involved in church groups, don't believe in God, don't believe in heaven, hell, miracles, don't read the Bible, don't listen to advice just because it's Biblical or Christian, don't respect your local religious leaders, and more. are some of those good ideas? yes in some form. are they actually all obvious and easy to implement? no.

- from the list of things atheism consists of: have most religious people already implemented at least one of these in their life? yes. successfully? beneficially? yes. and what about atheists, they've generally implemented most or all of them. but successfully? beneficially? sometimes yes, sometimes no, frequently unclear.

Here is some especially good Feynman stuff from the book Perfectly Reasonable Deviations From The Beaten Track:

Page xix: Feynman wanted to marry, but worried he was being too impulsive. So he marked a day on his calendar a few months ahead and planned only to propose if he still felt the same way on that day. It's wonderful how he was willing to second guess his own judgment in an area where he knew he might make mistakes. In the event, he still felt the same way and proposed on the marked day. It must have been very tempting to propose early since he felt so strongly. After a few weeks of feeling like that he could have thought, "I have waited. I still feel the same. Nothing is going to change. I've done my experiment. I should propose now." But Feynman had the integrity to wait. One of the things Feynman told us about science is that it helps us to avoid fooling ourselves, which is normally very easy. It's also easy to fool yourself when you're in love, so I think it was very wise of him to wait the full duration.

Page xix:

Of my father's many skills, this willingness to play the fool—and to let me think he could be completely outfoxed by my clever thinking—was the one that shaped my childhood more than any other.

I [Feynman's daughter] was simply unaware for many years that he was revered as a supreme intellect.

Feynman's humility is impressive. He didn't even mention his status to his children. Many people, including Feynman, have said we should not trust in authorities and experts, or take them too seriously. Feynman once defined science as belief in the ignorance of experts. But Feynman took this attitude much further than most people. He really didn't want to listen to authorities, or have anyone listen to his. And he wouldn't even passively let it happen if people wanted to treat him as an authority; he made a genuine effort to prevent it.

Of course, some people won't listen to Feynman no matter what he says about how they should use their own judgment. Rather, they have completely ignored what he said so they can treat his every word as revealed truth. :)

Page xx: Feynman taught his daughter some shortcuts an alternate approaches for solving math problems. Her teacher scolded her for not solving the problems in "the right way". Feynman went to speak to the teacher, who didn't know who Feynman was and treated him like an idiot. The teacher even accused Feynman of not knowing anything about math. Finally Feynman stopped biting his tongue. In the long run he had to teach math to his daughter personally. His humble attitude is admirable, as well as his involved parenting.

Page 373: Feynman's last words before he died in 1988 were: "I'd hate to die twice. It's so boring."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettier_problem

Fourth Condition (JTB+G) approaches

The most common direction for this sort of response to take is what might be called a "JTB+G" analysis: that is, an analysis based on finding some fourthcondition "” a "no-Gettier-problem" condition "” which, when added to the conditions of justification, truth, and belief, will yield a set of necessary and jointly sufficient conditions.

In general, exceptions ruin explanations.

For example, if I propose that when I jump off a building I will float and not fall, this is an exception to the theory of gravity. But it's not an itty, bitty thing that has consequences isolated to this one day, one building, one person. It completely ruins the theory of gravity for all cases. Why should the explanations about curved space-time (or the more common sense knowledge about how heavy stuff falls to the earth) not apply to this particular case? *No reason*. So, that's a disaster. When do they apply, and when don't they? Why those times and not the others? We have no idea what's going on! Just because this one exception messed things up.

If it really happened -- I jumped off the building and floated *just once* -- this one exception would interest scientists worldwide and make them rethink gravity in general, and other related physics too. It's consequences could not be contained by suggesting "the theory of gravity plus the theory of Elliot floating on March 7"

So getting back to the article:

They have a theory that K=JTB (knowledge is justified true belief). This theory, and the *reasons for it*, are intended to apply to all knowledge. Just like the theory of gravity's explanations apply to all people and all places.

Then they find an exception. So someone proposes a new theory: K=JTB+G. It's the old theory with an exception tacked on for the Gettier problem. It's exactly the theory we found ridiculous in the gravity case. You can't contain things like this. Epistemologists worldwide should be going, "Oh my God, we can't have exceptions! Something is very wrong here!"

Though I have to say, K=JTB was never a reasonable explanatory theory in the first place. It did not contain reasons it should apply to all knowledge, they just guessed that it did because they couldn't think of more exceptions. In fact, they seem to have started with the idea that whatever we think of is knowledge, and then eliminated three common exceptions. What's the big deal in throwing out one more? Only that checklists are the wrong approach to epistemology and finding that they are incomplete should be considered a hint that you've got the wrong approach.

PS I realize there were other responses given. If you think any of them are good, and say why, I'll be happy to comment.

PPS This is mostly explained in

http://www.amazon.com/Fabric-Reality-Parallel-Universes-Implications/dp/014027541X/

before you use time machine, check out the list of exclusions. they include ~/library/logs which is where AOL's AIM program keeps its logs. Apple makes zero effort to let the user know what files it's excluding. See:

http://shiftedbits.org/2007/10/31/time-machine-exclusions/

step 1: take a homeopathic remedy

step 2a: condition improves

step 3a: declare it worked

step 2b: condition gets worse

step 3b: declare it's not all powerful, it probably helped a little, not even official doctor medicine can cure everything instantly

The Life of a HU

Fighting UD demonstrates a HU's lack of power
you just lose if you don't mass tower
Fighting orc your casters will shine
do a sky push and he's sure to whine
When elf comes your way
an xpo will save the day
When you face a fellow HU
don't feel blue
tech and harass
can beat caster mass

The Life of an Orc

Stack that imba blade
and you'll have it made
They'll spam dust
because they must
but it's no use
don't call a truce
Just sell your tp
circlet is gg

The Life of an Elf

Being an elf
is good for your health
No matter how nub
you never can lose
Attack-move for the win
try not to grin

The Life of an UD

Coil nova impale
will never fail
Your units may suck
but who gives a fuck?
Nuke nuke nuke nuke