aneeshm

What's your name?

The position lists a Ph.D. as a requirement - that's just for the researcher position, right? I'm interested in the development roles; does a Master's degree focused on systems meet your qualification requirements?

Also, what's your e-mail, so I may contact you?

I don't know whether it's well-regarded; I do however highly recommend the translation-cum-rearrangement by Rangarajan: http://www.amazon.com/Arthashastra-Penguin-classics-Kautilya... (I've read it myself, and found it quite good.)

(He's re-arranged it to be coherent for a modern reader; one reason for this is because the original was meant to be memorised and perhaps used from memory, and was ordered accordingly.)

Yep. Let's Streisand her GoFundMe: http://www.gofundme.com/rw8p88r

Deaf people's problems are not my problems (except insofar as I choose to act on empathy I may feel), and making something accessible is a choice, and not something deaf people have any right to, nor I any obligation to provide. They are entitled to nothing (from me) I do not freely choose to give. They may have achieved sufficient political power to force others to do what they want, whether or not the other person wants to - but that is just coercion and nothing more than thuggery, and should be treated as such. To destroy other people's access to a good because you have the power to, in order to coerce them into acting so that you receive such a good yourself, is wrong.

(If I have the resources to make something accessible, and if I value making something accessible to deaf people over other uses of those resources, then of course it's a good thing to make it accessible. Personally, I think making these videos accessible would be a very good thing; I also think that, as long as it's reasonably feasible, the universities should . But the existence of deaf people does not represent any kind of a claim on my (or anyone else's) resources, nor a shackle on my behaviour; and if it does under current, it damn well shouldn't, and that law is unjust and oppressive.)

You're probably referring to Reflections on Trusting Trust[1], by Ken Thompson.

[1] http://cm.bell-labs.com/who/ken/trust.html

Thank you. I am embarking on a course of independent study which I expect to last for a year to four, and I have a feeling that this course will pay for itself in both time, effort, and increased understanding.

If this turns out to be true for human beings (and I can't think of a reason, a priori, why it shouldn't be), then it has massive implications for both practical ethics as well as more abstract ideas of morality.

If what you do to someone affects not just him, but also all his descendants up to N generations....

No.

Mindfulness meditation has a measurable and significant effect not only on stress, emotional regulation, recurrent thoughts/rumination, attention, and decision-making, but also a physical effect in the brain in the form of a reduction of amygdala size, and an increase in the activity (and size) of the prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices.

`Internally', it changes the meditator's subjective sense of self and of how he experiences the world.