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

Waiting in line near me were two girls, age 4, and their mothers, who were talking. The girls entertained themselves.

The girls left, and returned holding a glass bottle containing red liquid. The bottle was large compared to their height. One held it, in two hands, cradling it protectively, and vigilantly attending to its safety. The other stayed close, watching too, in case the first failed in her duty.

They were instructed to put the bottle back, because they already had one at home. As they left, the second mother said, "Don't drop it." Hearing this, the first mother was spurred to action and said, "Be careful, it's glass." Satisfied, the parents resumed talking without a further glance to their daughters.

As the girls walked away, the bottle carrier replied, "I know."

In general, it is unreasonable to give advice to someone when you know less about the situation than he does, and have no reason to think the advice will be useful. We can infer that the children had heard this advice many times previously. This is noticeable in the casual way the mothers said it, the overly-careful behavior of the girls, and the "I know" reply.

A good parent would think about what his child wants, and use questions and observations to help him understand, and then find ways to be helpful. These parents gave advice tailored to any child of that age and never, in all the times they've repeated it, watched to see if the children were careful or not. They simply assumed their children did not listen to them, or that all young children are careless. And they gave the advice anyway, with no reasonable expectation that it would help anyone.

i was looking for a replacement font for Monaco 14pt for programming, b/c the italic version makes apostrophes invisible (at least in textmate)

after a while i found the perfect replacement:

Monaco 13pt

for whatever reason, the italic algorithm manages to slant apostrophes for 13pt without them disappearing.

I thought of a use for email spam. Get a list of the most common passwords, then send out random emails saying, "Your password is '(random password)', please change it." A few people will get freaked out and change to a better password. It's a public service.

Tabloids appeal to the lowest common denominator.

The highest common divisor makes more sense. That way, I prefer a number compatible with me first, and a higher one second, and the highest common divisor is the highest number compatible with everyone.