jscn

To make some sweeping generalisations, Pythonistas tend to be more computer-sciencey than the Ruby crowd, and if you're doing a lot of heavy number crunching, it might be worth checking out SciPy/numpy and whether there are equivalent stacks in Ruby (I have done this research but my gut says there aren't.) OTOH, the sheer size and popularity of RoR means that it's much easier to find work in Ruby/Rails than Python/Django. YMMV.

All the subjects in the article are very concerned with what they need, what they want. I think it's telling that they don't voice concern over whether they might be capable of being such a friend to someone else.

---

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philia

There is no such thing as the scientific method. What you're thinking of (presumably something Popperian) is not how science is really done. A lot of science is pig-headedly ignoring evidence which tells you a theory is wrong. Sometimes that works itself out and you get a better theory (see Einstein). Other times it doesn't.

Look, the purpose of medicine is to make people healthy. Definitions of 'healthy' are different for different cultures and social groups at different times. Western scientific medicine is only one approach for one kind of culture, and it often does more harm than good.

Furthermore, western scientific medicine often ignores procedures and knowledge coming from non-western sources which, when translated into scientific language, turn out to be correct within the WSM framework.

edit: formatting

There are at least a couple reasons: 1) A lot of the conflict that destroys so many lives is motivated by limited resources such as land. Getting off this planet could make that kind of conflict disappear (eventually). 2) Diversification. If climate change/oil scarcity/nano/GE get out of hand, it'd be good to have someplace else to go. Even if you're sceptical about the environmental risks from climate change and oil scarcity, GE and nano pose big risks. The easier nano and GE get, the more likely some bio-/nano-hacker somewhere creates an irreversible problem for us (whether accidentally or intentionally).

I'm not disputing that modern physics is our best understanding of how the physical world works, but you do lose an important aspect of education by this style of pedagogy. When do you learn what made the best scientific minds what they were? Why should you have to reinvent their learning yourself if you want to be as great as them?

The way 'they' teach physics is just one way to learn it, not necessarily the best. Especially if your goals are not simply to get a degree.

One of the things which philosophy does (and has done) is to clarify which questions to ask, how to ask them, and so forth. Once the problem domain is clarified enough, science can step in and start being useful. Of course, there is no clear-cut border between the two (which can be seen historically in the development of physics, biology, etc.)

That's definitely not the only thing which philosophy does, but I think that's the idea being discussed here.

I don't understand why there is no free software equivalent of Apple, selling (laptop) hardware and maintaining a GNU/Linux distro that's guaranteed to work on it. Surely there's a buck or two to made?

Negative freedom, freedom from having to do things you don't want, can be had by quitting your job and living in a cardboard box. Don't want to go to work? That's cool, you can just sit in your box, or go for a walk, or whatever.

Positive freedom, on the other hand, can really only be had in this society by accumulating money. If you want to buy a house, support a family and travel, then you need to have the cash to do so.

Of course, if you get enough money, then you can have both. The converse isn't true. But that's difficult to do, and it certainly is a gamble. I think you and the OP just have a different idea of where it's desirable to be on the continuum from -ve to +ve.

  the most overpriced for the value they deliver.

Unfortunately, the line between the two is blurry at best. For example, I'm not sure how well this jives with the case of the printer software which provided the catalyst for RMS starting the FS movement in the first place.

> Many fewer lines of code than

This grammar bugs me. I feel like this should be "Much fewer" or similar, but I'm not totally sure it's wrong as posted. Opinions?

Having a very physical hobby keeps me grounded in reality after spending most of the day thinking about philosophy or writing or coding (I'm a student). There's a lot of pretty direct feedback about your improvement over time, too, which I find can be lacking in more intellectual pursuits.

For non-technical courses, lectures aren't (or shouldn't be) simply rehashing of the content of books. The best (non-technical) lectures I have been to drew on readings done but consisted of drawing links between them, exposing subtle points, guided discussion and exposition of unpublished research by the lecturer.