Peter Naur on "computing vs human thinking"

In CACM, Jan 2007, V50N1, p85-93. Has some interesting comments about the nature of language & cognition, & refs to William James & Otto Jespersen

Software sandboxes

"Safe" module (ch 23.3 in "Programming Perl, 3rd ed) (sandbox)
Ruby Sandbox module http://code.whytheluckystiff.net/sandbox/
Steel Bank Common Lisp http://www.sbcl.org/
http://www.cl-user.net/asp/root-dir (apparently, Common Lisp has a sandbox, but I couldn't find it...)

Evolution of morality

Some interesting ideas here about the evolution of morality (& language...), e.g.:

Furthermore, Damasio and Bargh both found, as Michael Gazzaniga had years before, that people couldn't stop themselves from making up post-hoc explanations for whatever it was they had just done for unconscious reasons. Combine these developments and suddenly Kohlbergian moral psychology seemed to be studying the wagging tail, rather than the dog. If the building blocks of morality were shaped by natural selection long before language arose, and if those evolved structures work largely by giving us feelings that shape our behavior automatically, then why should we be focusing on the verbal reasons that people give to explain their judgments in hypothetical moral dilemmas?

...

Moral thinking is for social doing. This is a play on William James' pragmatist dictum that thinking is for doing, updated by newer work on Machiavellian intelligence. The basic idea is that we did not evolve language and reasoning because they helped us to find truth; we evolved these skills because they were useful to their bearers, and among their greatest benefits were reputation management and manipulation.

2007 Info retrieval book