Thursday, June 08, 2006

Congratulations, Mark, on a big Game 1 win. Three to go! (And thanks for blogging before and around the game. It made me feel more connected to the whole affair. Glad you did it.) 11:22:40 PM    comment []

Again, with the varied perspectives on the news out of Iran: Iran Resumes Uranium Enrichment Work [New York Times: International News] Tehran boosts hopes of end to nuclear standoff. World: President Ahmadinejad responds to US concession · IAEA reports on new uranium enrichment [Guardian Unlimited] 10:55:29 PM    comment []

Why Hire a Philosophy Major? (J. Stanley). Perhaps because those trained in philosophy are likely to possess a better combination of verbal reasoning, quantitative reasoning, and analytical writing skills than those trained in any other... [Leiter Reports: A Group Blog] See, also: What can I do with a degree in philosophy? 10:55:24 PM    comment []

In short, the qualities that make foxes more accurate also make them less popular. How Accurate Are Your Pet Pundits? By Philip E. Tetlock. Every day, experts bombard us with their views on topics as varied as Iraqi insurgents, Bolivian coca growers, European central bankers, and North Korea’s Politburo. But how much credibility should we attach to the opinions of experts? . . . . . . . Until recently, no one knew who is right, because no one was keeping score. But the results of a 20-year research project now suggest that the skeptics are closer to the truth. . . . Here, then, is a modest proposal that applies to all democracies: the marketplace of ideas works better if it is easier for citizens to see the trade-offs between accuracy and entertainment, or between accuracy and party loyalty. Wouldn’t they be more likely to read pundits with better track records? If so, pundits might adapt to accountability by showing more humility, and political debate might begin to sound less shrill. Granted, it is not easy to create methods of keeping score that are credible across the spectrum of reasonable opinion. But in a world where, as Yeats said, “and the best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity,” it is worth trying. Expert Political Judgment: How good is it? How can we know? 9:30:15 AM    comment []

Fighting Cybercrime in Nigeria, By Oluwaseun Ayantokun, in Lagos. The convenience associated with IT and the Internet is now being exploited to serve criminal purposes. Cybercrime covers internet fraud not just online 419 - the use of computers and or the internet to commit crime. Computer-assisted crime include e-mail scams, hacking, distribution of hostile software (viruses and worms), denial of service attacks, theft of data, extortion, fraud and impersonation. . . . For now,there is an IT security divide - a serious shortage of skills to deal with the threats associated with IT. Shouting and moaning about cybercrime isn't enough. All the talk is meaningless unless the gap is closed. Security agencies need to be equipped with the skills, the know-how and the insight necessary to fight cybercrime effectively.While resources are needed to fight the menace, it is imperative to avoid the misdirected approach of'throwing money' at the problem. The approach must be based on policies and strategies. Such policies must be based on knowledge. Knowledge not just for the operatives, but also for those that will commit resources. For example, do the decision makers have any REAL, PRACTICAL appreciation of technology, not to talk of cybercrime? What is their stake on the basics of information security in today's high-tech, business environment? The cybercriminals seem to have the technology advantage. Essentially, cybercrime is information and intelligence- based activity. You cannot fight cybercrime with ignorance, strong directives or boastful talk, Mr Jide Awe, an ICT expert, said in a conference paper presented in 2004. 9:30:10 AM    comment []