random musings

I was having an enjoyable early Summer BBQ chat with Mark Kerr and Jonathan (Noodles) McDowell a few weeks ago. We know each other from the days of Fidonet's greatest glory. Fidonet still exists, but back then the internet did not have a presence in normal people's lives, academics I worked with at Queen's only selectively had email access, and that through the dark arts of Kermit. Back then a few of us ran Bulletin Board Systems, over plain vanilla modems with all sorts of speeds, 1200 bps transfer rates were common.

The systems were held together as nodes in Fidonet, and the hundreds or thousands of users on each system could send a form of email to other users in the same system, or even users across the world. Every message was piggy backed on the daily or nightly phone calls from one system to a neighbouring system. Mark and I would call some odd systems, like that of Joaquim Homrighausen and Mats Wallin in Sweden, and we would happily carry any mail going for Sweden or coming back.

Everyone was sharing a bit of the cost. As such, it was considered the height of poor etiquette to reply to a message tens of lines long, quoting the whole message with a "me too" at the top or the bottom. You were expecting someone else to pay for transmitting the whole original message again, just for your extra words. You were expecting in echomail (the Fidonet equivalent of newsgroups, or mailing lists) that hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of systems would store all that information on all those hard disks.

No, it was correct to trim a few salient lines from the original, and put your reply below it. That's enough for everyone to see what is going on. Every mail editor in existence showed the quoted text either with a ">" character to the left, or sometimes a "CT>" to indicate the initials of who wrote it.

These trimmed, quoted conversations allowed the full flow of the conversation to be followed by anyone without referring back to every word uttered by the original poster, and showed the coherence of the thread in a way that is hard to do in any other way. Google Wave is perhaps a modern attempt at the same idea.

But than people grew indifferent to bandwidth because there was so much, so they never bothered to trim their replies. You can expect in a modern mailing list to find each reply containing complete copies of all the previous correspondence to that point, which is already stored in the list, shown in a nice threaded view in your editor. Some new email programs (I'm looking at you, Outlook), made it almost impossible for people to do anything other than "top post", because they don't easily show quoted text.

And here I am, an old dinosaur who still tries to stick to the old ways, because I believe it's easier to read properly quoted replies... but increasingly, you can't have conversations with people with braindead mail software because they just can't do it. And they haven't even seen it before, they can't understand it. They complain when you don't top post your replies. Like the stereotypical cantankerous codger sitting in his porch watching the kids mess on his lawn I want to tell them that no, they are the ones doing it in the stupid new fangled way. We were here first.

So maybe we should just give up... those few of us left, but then I was reminded (by Noodles) that now email is being shipped around mobile devices all the old arguments of bandwidth and storage are increasingly relevant again. So I ask the open question, is there any point in trying to stick to the "old ways"? Thoughts on a postcard please.

Posted by Colin Turner

Today I have found myself reading about three authors. These three men had various levels of fame and in each case, the interest today was more about them than it was about their work.

Samuel Clements aka Mark Twain, the great American writer was coming to my attention because his century long delay in publishing his memoirs is coming to an end. I must confess that I've never been the biggest fan of Twain's works, though many I have enjoyed. His life is very interesting however, filled as it was at times with great pathos and controversy as well as success. There are many theories as to why his memoirs have been so delayed, but one of the front runners is that some of his comments about (at least orthodox, in the broad sense) religion attracted attention. I'm sure it will be broader than that. Nevertheless, one of his quotes is already in the random section in my blog.

Also it has another name - The Word of God. For the Christian thinks every word of it was dictated by God. It is full of interest. It has noble poetry in it; and some clever fables; and some blood-drenched history; and some good morals; and a wealth of obscenity; and upwards of a thousand lies… But you notice that when the Lord God of Heaven and Earth, adored Father of Man, goes to war, there is no limit. He is totally without mercy - he, who is called the Fountain of Mercy. He slays, slays, slays! All the men, all the beasts, all the boys, all the babies; also all the women and all the girls, except those that have not been deflowered. He makes no distinction between innocent and guilty… What the insane Father required was blood and misery; he was indifferent as to who furnished it.

I have great sympathy for this quote, and it puzzles me when I meet people who cannot remotely consider the possibility that, even if there is a perfect God, perfect in His grace, that it might be the case that the humans who wrote the bible might not have listened so well. Because the only other possibility is that such acts are, in fact, OK to be committed by people when protected by divine wrath.

You may recognise this quote, it is possible that it is illegal to publish it in the Republic or Ireland which is another story altogether. Anyway, it will be interesting to see what else Mark Twain will offer the world in his memoirs.

Martin Gardner is my second author under discussion. I read of his death today, albeit at a ripe old age. His collection of mathematical puzzle books adorned my shelves (they currently languish in a box for now) for many years and with collections of his own puzzles and those of many others, they gave me insight into the nature of mathematics. I still use some of the puzzles I read about in my classes.

I was quite surprised to read that he had written extensively about Lewis Carroll and his work, although as a mathematician I was long aware of the mathematical implications of Carroll's works. So I'll perhaps have to acquire that book for summer reading. However I have long suspected that the more controversial aspects of Carroll have prevented him being enthusiastically claimed by mathematics in the public imagination.

Gardner's book introduced me the Fibonacci Sequence, and so it is fitting that I saw this the day before. I think he would have loved it.

Nature by Numbers from Cristóbal Vila on Vimeo.

Douglas Adams was the third author. I couldn't write about authors on Towel Day and not mention him. I have been marking much of the day, but when I've been out and about running a few errands, I have always known where my towel was. I reflected how Douglas would have marvelled at the fact that already, many of us already have the closest thing to Hitch Hiker's Guide in our back pocket, a smart phone connected to Wikipedia, and the rest of the total of human knowledge on the Internet (and the sum total of gibberish too).

Hmm. And having just added more to that pile with more rambling even than usual, I'll say so long and thanks for all the fish.

Posted by Colin Turner

Success at last. I've written before about my problems getting vidzone working, and tonight while taking a breather from some work I tried the Oracle of Google again, and I found a solution. As I suspected, it wasn't a network problem at all.

Kudos to lyonix, who suggested that deleting a corrupt cache for Vidzone from the game data utility often works. It worked perfectly for me, (note even removing and reinstalling the software doesn't affect that).

Posted by Colin Turner

Derren Brown has been back on our screens recently with a series of big events. It's brought him a lot of publicity, and a lot of the public comment has been amusing to say the least. I've been watching everyone comment on the TV and Radio that he's a trickster, and his explanations of how he does things are often bogus.

Yes.... Yes... That's the point. He's a magician, a showman, he tells you right up front at the start of the show. Misdirection, magic, showmanship and more. It's entertainment. He is the first to make it clear that what he does is a trick. He doesn't claim otherwise. If you can't bring yourself to enjoy that, I humbly suggest you watch something else. And while we are on it, I'm relieved people see it's a trick. I think David Blaine's closeup magic is among the most impressive I have ever seen, and I shudder when those around him don't even seem to consider it's just a trick.

Personally, I love Derren, I love his cheeky smug as hell smile as he gets away with it. I enjoy his faked discomfiture. I enjoy it when he fakes near success in tricks to make them more convincing. I enjoy calling him names as I laugh as he lies through his teeth to the audience. I have casually studied a bit of magic in my time, and he is a fine magician. Many big stage magicians rely on assistants, who actually do all the hard work, but he is clearly the architect of most of his own tricks. I'm reading his book and it is informative and very amusing to me, and I very much respect him as a fellow in fight against (rampant) irrationality (a little bit can be a fine thing).

Sadly I've missed a few of the "events", since it clashes with my Iaido class and I wasn't organised enough to record it. I'm slowly catching up on 4OD. But I did see the program on how he stole the lottery. And I'm a mathematician, and I laughed and laughed at it. I didn't believe a word of it, but even the deceit was cleverly convincing and it's not trivial to say exactly what he really did.

He claims he averaged the results of a crowd of people picking lottery numbers. There's a consequence to this. Consider this: how many ways can 50 people pick a number that averages to 1? How many ways can they pick numbers that average to 30? If you understand this point you'll see the possible "answers" from the crowd have an odd distribution. But the cover story was very amusing in its own right. You don't want to know how he really did it, it'll be shockingly dull.

So yes. We know he didn't show the numbers in advance of the draw. Yes, we know his explanation is nonsense. It's a trick. That's the point. Enjoy it and smile along with his insufferable smugness .

Posted by Colin Turner

Recently, I've spoken to a few people about an English tourist having his genitals set alight in Crete. Apparently he was exposing himself to a local girl and fondling her.

If so, his behaviour was just plain disgraceful, and regardless of the justice of the situation as defined by the law, a stern reminder to him and others that actions have consequences, no matter how fair those may or may not be.

But what interests me most is the almost universal mirthful reaction to this story. It reminds me of the furore around John Wayne Bobbit, which was also regarded as all but universally hilarious by both genders. That relationship was very abusive, and hardly hilarious in its own right. Bobbit seems to have a record of physical as well as other abuse doled out to his partners, but what really interests me is the gender polarity of the amusing violence.

Suppose a woman abused her husband in a relationship; and in turn, one night when she was drunk he took a scalpel and removed one of her breasts. Who's laughing now?

Suppose it was a British girl in Crete, annoying a man; again who laughs if he sets her on fire? It's interesting how we are programed to trivialise and laugh concerning violence against men that would be considered an utter disgrace and conversation stopper against a woman.

Posted by Colin Turner

I went to Terminator Salvation tonight with Andy. I don't think what follows will act as a spoiler, but if you haven't seen it, plan to, and worry about that, look away now.

I enjoyed the first two Terminator films hugely. The third one, ho hum, and this one was good entertainment except for the final 5 minutes that made me want to scream.

The film is generally lots of fun, with a nice mix of action and special effects. There are some gaping plot holes, including the biggest which would be a huge spoiler to discuss, so I won't. I did like the way the resistance apparently communicate on non-encrypted radio channels and Skynet can't listen in. Anyway, let's set all that aside for a moment.

Though the terminator films are rip roaring fun at their best, they do all proceed from a fundamentally flawed premise. That is that noble humanity has to protect itself from the ruthless, evil and by definition inhuman computer network. What this rather brushes over is that according to its canon, Skynet was activated, became self aware, and then humanity tried to switch it off. Now, in most ethical systems, it is acceptable for a sentient being to use lethal force to protect itself from being killed, more refined systems might try to use less than lethal force, but that often can't be expected. That makes it a bit more blurred to regard Skynet as specifically evil, and humanity as noble; just as we create sentient company for ourselves we try to extinguish it, good for us! Look what our human emotions and instincts produce!

And, once again, the rousing climax of the most recent film is supposed to showcase the best of humanity. But they do so using a situation that closely mirrors aspects of the trolley problem and which for me, underlines the lack of humanity in the decision.

I'm away to lie down now.

Posted by Colin Turner

I'm not an American, but like many people I'm aware of the Fifth Amendment and how it is often lampooned. I recently discussed this with someone, and I can't for the life of me remember who, was it Peter at BLUG? If it was you, you'll enjoy this.

The discussion centred about why it would be remotely helpful to plead the fifth since it seems to make it 100% clear that there is blame to be apportioned. Quite by coincidence this week I came across this Slashdot story about a man arrested for taking picture of an ATM. The comments discussed how it can be generally unwise to argue with armed law enforcement officers. I've frequently made similar points, and also about customs officials and giving them a legitimate reason to don surgical gloves.

Someone posted a link to this fascinating law lecture given by Professor James Duane who argues cogently that one should never talk to the police without protection, that it can never help you, but may harm you. A police officer is allowed to rebut and give the last say, and this is equally interesting. Definitely thought provoking.

Posted by Colin Turner