A band rediscovered: Lush
For a while now, I've had the office to myself. It's been wonderful. It's so nice being able to concentrate on the task at hand. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy pleasant social distraction as much as the next guy, but I enjoy playing in "happy fun space" (to use Ian Bank's term) with these abstract puzzles just as much. And to be honest, I'm paid to play with those abstractions more than with others.
Oddly enough, this delicious seclusion has made me get more into my music collection. In particular, I rediscovered Lush, a nineties shoegaze band who's kinda dreamy, but perhaps a bit more up-tempo than most shoegaze. (It's an interesting question as to why having a closed door would make me more into my music rather than less. I think it's because I don't have to worry about people sneaking up on me, so I groove out, get focused on the problem and code away.)
I also discovered Outkast. That's a band I don't quite know what to do with. Are they serious? Are they kidding? Do I care? It is, for the most part, incredibly raunchy and low-brow music of the sort that I never like to listen to.
Ok, I'm skipping around a bit, but perhaps this kind of deep concentration is exactly what agile programming hopes to eliminate. If it takes concentration to create, it will take concentration to maintain, and concentration is in precious short supply. Companies don't want to shell out for private workspaces, even for senior people. My normal stance is that this is a sad foolishness - I work better with privacy, and if you want your money's worth, then just give me some privacy. But maybe there's some method to this madness. You don't want your best developers loosing everyone in the dust. How to slow them down? Put them in bullpens, and treat them like bulls.
Oddly enough, this delicious seclusion has made me get more into my music collection. In particular, I rediscovered Lush, a nineties shoegaze band who's kinda dreamy, but perhaps a bit more up-tempo than most shoegaze. (It's an interesting question as to why having a closed door would make me more into my music rather than less. I think it's because I don't have to worry about people sneaking up on me, so I groove out, get focused on the problem and code away.)
I also discovered Outkast. That's a band I don't quite know what to do with. Are they serious? Are they kidding? Do I care? It is, for the most part, incredibly raunchy and low-brow music of the sort that I never like to listen to.
Ok, I'm skipping around a bit, but perhaps this kind of deep concentration is exactly what agile programming hopes to eliminate. If it takes concentration to create, it will take concentration to maintain, and concentration is in precious short supply. Companies don't want to shell out for private workspaces, even for senior people. My normal stance is that this is a sad foolishness - I work better with privacy, and if you want your money's worth, then just give me some privacy. But maybe there's some method to this madness. You don't want your best developers loosing everyone in the dust. How to slow them down? Put them in bullpens, and treat them like bulls.
Performance tuning Subversion (for binaries)
Performance tuning Subversion: "The performance conclusions in this article are broadly applicable to most any system using Subversion to store and retrieve binary files. The decision of how to optimize Subversion must, however, be based on the circumstances and resources of a given system. For example, in the case of the system under test, time was a much higher priority than server space. It made sense, therefore, to store binaries as compressed tar files before importing them into and exporting them out of Subversion. Compressing the binaries yields the shortest possible wait times, thus meeting the requirements of the project. The repercussions for server space usage are negligible to the system, and in any case compressed tar files take up only a little more space than using efficient check-in."
Justin Webb comments on faith in the US
BBC NEWS | Programmes | From Our Own Correspondent | America's great faith divide: "There is a reason, I think, why theocracy will never fly in the United States and it has been touched on, inadvertently, by George Bush himself."
I would add that his anecdote about the parents being outraged by a moment of silence is dead-on. Why is silence such a bad thing, even if it really is an attempt by certain religious people to be more publically religious? As I grow older, I feel more and more an affinity with silence, and it really seems to me that the slippery slope truly stops there. Silence is NOT a precursor to an abortion ban. So don't worry about it!
I would add that his anecdote about the parents being outraged by a moment of silence is dead-on. Why is silence such a bad thing, even if it really is an attempt by certain religious people to be more publically religious? As I grow older, I feel more and more an affinity with silence, and it really seems to me that the slippery slope truly stops there. Silence is NOT a precursor to an abortion ban. So don't worry about it!
Multi-touch computer interfaces.
Now, my idea was the "Computer Aided Gaming Table" and relied on sound to do multi-point positioning (I have no idea what they use). Also, my surface was to be shared by several people, and I thought that, in order to save money, I would project the image onto a large surface.
But these guys actually made it work. This is the most exciting computer hardware advance I've seen...ever.
BTW, some would draw paralells with the fake UI in the movie "Minority Report" but I think that doesn't do the Multi-touch idea justice. The fake MR interface used far too many large body motions, which just aren't useful.
Article - Money - Blizzard makes WoW wish virtual reality
Article - Money - Blizzard makes WoW wish virtual reality: "WoW players should keep an eye out for Chatterton's creations: the rare, flame-shooting crossbow, a quest from a graying Tauren named Ahab Wheathoof and his frenzied dog, Kyle. Blizzard will add Ezra's changes to the game in the next four weeks."
A nice utility - ctrl2cap
I do not use caps lock hardly ever. I do use control all of the time. And yet caps lock is much closer to your fingers than control. This can be fixed with a HANDY UTILITY.
Technorati Tags: utility
Technorati Tags: utility
Something to help with the Blog - ScribeFire
I am testing this new Firefox plugin that promises to make writing blogs a snap. Kind of a "Blog It!" button on steroids. See all preview images
Powered by ScribeFire.
Blizzard Fan Art Program
Blizzard Fan Art Program: The fans of WoW (and all the Blizzard IP) are extremely talented. Just look at this pic of Illidan, a major character in the Warcraft universe. Fantastic.
Here's another great one.
Here's another great one.
Updated: Open Firefox JavaScript Console in a Sidebar
Updated: Open Firefox JavaScript Console in a Sidebar: "The above rules make use of the *!important* property value to override any rules that may already exist within the page that is being loaded."
Useful tip on getting some Javascript debugging information in Firefox (no plugin needed, even!) And I keep seeing this !important css thing everywhere. It's been around forever, but I guess it's use is more common now.
Useful tip on getting some Javascript debugging information in Firefox (no plugin needed, even!) And I keep seeing this !important css thing everywhere. It's been around forever, but I guess it's use is more common now.
Some wisdom
I'm really in no position to dispense advice to anyone (indeed, much of the time I find the concept of giving people advice to be a task both daunting and ridiculous). But I would like to record a small insight. It is possible, at any moment in time, to ask oneself: what is the foolish course of action? What is the wise course of action? It is also possible to pick one or the other. Within this deceptively simple observation lies the essence of freedom, which is choice.
I don't know enough to say whether or not choosing the wise course becomes easier over time. (I actually don't think it does; what happens is that the kinds of choices you make become harder and harder, so that while making wise choices at one level becomes easy, making wise choices at higher levels remains harder).
Some people say that doing the right thing is easy; other's say it's hard. I think that there is a fine are to knowing whether or not you're strong enough to be wise right now. But, the first step in learning that art is asking the question - what is the wise path? What is the foolish path? And when I say ask the question, I don't say ask it with a derisive eye toward's the foolish path. No! The foolish path must be understood and described with dispassion and care. Indeed, derision of the fool's path connotes a certain ego, a hubris, which is a kind of foolishness in itself. No, it's almost treating yourself as a character in a story that you are writing. (Yes, there is a small problem with recursion there, but ignore that for now!)
This question can be asked of small things ("the fool would go out drinking, the wise person would stay in and read this wonderful book") or large things ("a fool would pursue wealth, the wise would pursue self-knowledge").
So asking the question is the first step. It is purely descriptive. Deciding which path to walk is a completely separate issue. On what basis do we make such a decision? Why don't we always choose the path of wisdom? I don't know the answer to this. Our minds are constructs that have their own shape and rhythm, and tend to move in certain mysterious ways. Thoughts come and go and flit and flitter in beautiful patterns. And really, when you're watching them, that's all there is. Fascination. Patience. Absorption. On waking there comes the disturbance, the extrapolation of the experience that one's thought is not oneself. What is it then? Where do these thoughts come from?
Of course, there is great danger in following the implication of a fact. So much beauty in the world stems from people's insistence on not following an implication to it's logical end. So much beauty comes from the questions that people don't ask. Entertainment and the 'suspension of disbelief' is perhaps the most visible example. Questions restructure the domain in which they are asked. Questions shape the problem. This is why so many of the holistic healing kinds of people I know have at least a mild antipathy for science: the questions that science asks seem to ruin the joy of the problem. Of course, science is so perverted these days, with kids being taught by rote what gravity is and that we're all made of cells and that the solar system has 9 planets (or however many they've decided on) that they don't have a chance to do science. Science is looking, and thinking. Science is about following implications, but they should be your own implications. Scientific questions do shape the problem a bit too effectively; there are countless isomorphisms to these problems, which might not be as efficient or terse as modern science, but perhaps these isomorphisms have some other benefits. I just think that kids (and adults) should be encouraged to do science and not be forced to explain observations they've never made with concepts that have never meant anything to them. (This is why I think all of science should be told in novel form, recapitulating someone's quest for understanding, documenting all the wrong paths and crazy ideas. The modern science curriculum is so obsessed with efficiency, and cohesion, and information density that it becomes quite unscientific!)
When is it wise to follow the implication of a fact, and when is it folly? It depends on the fact, and it depends on you. There have been times when I knew, way deep down in my bones, that I had thought the wrong question. That the answer really and truly didn't matter. There was some sort of category error implicit in the asking, and no response would be appropriate. Best to let the question's residue die off, and hopefully something more useful will arise in it's place. It is truly a shame to continue asking questions like this, because eventually you convince yourself that it's worth asking (and worse, answering). Does this mean that there is a limit to discourse? Yes! This is something that western philosophers are loathe to hear, but yes, there are real limits to what can be hashed out in word play. Sometimes (arguably, most of the time) it is better to stop and think and do, rather than to speak (or write, as I am reminding myself!).
The wise path right now is to wrap up this post and go to sleep. Good night!
I don't know enough to say whether or not choosing the wise course becomes easier over time. (I actually don't think it does; what happens is that the kinds of choices you make become harder and harder, so that while making wise choices at one level becomes easy, making wise choices at higher levels remains harder).
Some people say that doing the right thing is easy; other's say it's hard. I think that there is a fine are to knowing whether or not you're strong enough to be wise right now. But, the first step in learning that art is asking the question - what is the wise path? What is the foolish path? And when I say ask the question, I don't say ask it with a derisive eye toward's the foolish path. No! The foolish path must be understood and described with dispassion and care. Indeed, derision of the fool's path connotes a certain ego, a hubris, which is a kind of foolishness in itself. No, it's almost treating yourself as a character in a story that you are writing. (Yes, there is a small problem with recursion there, but ignore that for now!)
This question can be asked of small things ("the fool would go out drinking, the wise person would stay in and read this wonderful book") or large things ("a fool would pursue wealth, the wise would pursue self-knowledge").
So asking the question is the first step. It is purely descriptive. Deciding which path to walk is a completely separate issue. On what basis do we make such a decision? Why don't we always choose the path of wisdom? I don't know the answer to this. Our minds are constructs that have their own shape and rhythm, and tend to move in certain mysterious ways. Thoughts come and go and flit and flitter in beautiful patterns. And really, when you're watching them, that's all there is. Fascination. Patience. Absorption. On waking there comes the disturbance, the extrapolation of the experience that one's thought is not oneself. What is it then? Where do these thoughts come from?
Of course, there is great danger in following the implication of a fact. So much beauty in the world stems from people's insistence on not following an implication to it's logical end. So much beauty comes from the questions that people don't ask. Entertainment and the 'suspension of disbelief' is perhaps the most visible example. Questions restructure the domain in which they are asked. Questions shape the problem. This is why so many of the holistic healing kinds of people I know have at least a mild antipathy for science: the questions that science asks seem to ruin the joy of the problem. Of course, science is so perverted these days, with kids being taught by rote what gravity is and that we're all made of cells and that the solar system has 9 planets (or however many they've decided on) that they don't have a chance to do science. Science is looking, and thinking. Science is about following implications, but they should be your own implications. Scientific questions do shape the problem a bit too effectively; there are countless isomorphisms to these problems, which might not be as efficient or terse as modern science, but perhaps these isomorphisms have some other benefits. I just think that kids (and adults) should be encouraged to do science and not be forced to explain observations they've never made with concepts that have never meant anything to them. (This is why I think all of science should be told in novel form, recapitulating someone's quest for understanding, documenting all the wrong paths and crazy ideas. The modern science curriculum is so obsessed with efficiency, and cohesion, and information density that it becomes quite unscientific!)
When is it wise to follow the implication of a fact, and when is it folly? It depends on the fact, and it depends on you. There have been times when I knew, way deep down in my bones, that I had thought the wrong question. That the answer really and truly didn't matter. There was some sort of category error implicit in the asking, and no response would be appropriate. Best to let the question's residue die off, and hopefully something more useful will arise in it's place. It is truly a shame to continue asking questions like this, because eventually you convince yourself that it's worth asking (and worse, answering). Does this mean that there is a limit to discourse? Yes! This is something that western philosophers are loathe to hear, but yes, there are real limits to what can be hashed out in word play. Sometimes (arguably, most of the time) it is better to stop and think and do, rather than to speak (or write, as I am reminding myself!).
The wise path right now is to wrap up this post and go to sleep. Good night!
More thoughts on astronomy
You can see half the sky. Polaris basically doesn't move. We are at 34 deg N lat. Therefore:
Polaris is 34 deg above the horizon. I know this because it would be at "0" on the equator and 90 at the N pole.
A full 34 deg of sky around polaris is visible every night (and day). Those stars never disappear from view.
That leaves 56 deg of the "northern" celestial sphere that varies in its visibility. It means that there are 34 deg of southern stars which are never visible, and another 56 deg of "southern" celestial sphere which always varies in visibility.
Maximal visibility of the star field is on the equator, then. But it's a quality vs quantity thing, as the most northern and southern stars will always be on the horizon.
The axial tilt of the Earth has nothing to do with any of the above assertions. The tilt affects observations of solar objects and can explain why the duration of night and day varies over longer stretches of time. So the tilt is important only insofar as it governs the length of the night.
There is no place on the Earth where night and day are equal in length for every season. There are places where the variation is minimized (e.g. the equator) but the change can never be erased.
If you look straight up, and imagine a line shooting off into space, and then trace that line over one day, you make a cone. The cone can be thought to have a "night" part and a "day" part who's ratios differ according to the season (summer nights are shortest).
If night and day were equal, then one could see all the stars if one started viewing just after sunset in Jan, and stopped viewing 6 months later in July. That is because 12 hours of night are equal to 6 months - or rather, you can "time travel" into the future if you start viewing later in the night. The midnight sky in Jan looks the same as 11pm sky in Feb.
If you really wanted to see all the stars, you'd be better off starting in the Fall and stopping in the Spring, since the nights are (significantly) longer. There is no need to view all year-round to achieve this goal.
When we get to solar objects (including the sun!) I get a little hazier. Does the sun move at the same rate as the stars? It can't because this is inconsistent with the observation that different stars are overhead at midnight in any particular season. Okay, but does the Sun move faster or slower? What a coincidence that there are 12 months in the year and 12 hours in the night! Remarkable that I've never noticed that before.
Polaris is 34 deg above the horizon. I know this because it would be at "0" on the equator and 90 at the N pole.
A full 34 deg of sky around polaris is visible every night (and day). Those stars never disappear from view.
That leaves 56 deg of the "northern" celestial sphere that varies in its visibility. It means that there are 34 deg of southern stars which are never visible, and another 56 deg of "southern" celestial sphere which always varies in visibility.
Maximal visibility of the star field is on the equator, then. But it's a quality vs quantity thing, as the most northern and southern stars will always be on the horizon.
The axial tilt of the Earth has nothing to do with any of the above assertions. The tilt affects observations of solar objects and can explain why the duration of night and day varies over longer stretches of time. So the tilt is important only insofar as it governs the length of the night.
There is no place on the Earth where night and day are equal in length for every season. There are places where the variation is minimized (e.g. the equator) but the change can never be erased.
If you look straight up, and imagine a line shooting off into space, and then trace that line over one day, you make a cone. The cone can be thought to have a "night" part and a "day" part who's ratios differ according to the season (summer nights are shortest).
If night and day were equal, then one could see all the stars if one started viewing just after sunset in Jan, and stopped viewing 6 months later in July. That is because 12 hours of night are equal to 6 months - or rather, you can "time travel" into the future if you start viewing later in the night. The midnight sky in Jan looks the same as 11pm sky in Feb.
If you really wanted to see all the stars, you'd be better off starting in the Fall and stopping in the Spring, since the nights are (significantly) longer. There is no need to view all year-round to achieve this goal.
When we get to solar objects (including the sun!) I get a little hazier. Does the sun move at the same rate as the stars? It can't because this is inconsistent with the observation that different stars are overhead at midnight in any particular season. Okay, but does the Sun move faster or slower? What a coincidence that there are 12 months in the year and 12 hours in the night! Remarkable that I've never noticed that before.
Why do astronomy?
Why do astronomy? I mean, the pros do it really well with impossibly expensive equipment, and essentially, there is nothing left to discover right? Well, not so fast...
I just got back from an impromptu meeting of sky watchers. I have to say there is something wonderful about seeing Saturn. And the moon. And the constellations being described by someone who knows what they're talking about! About knowing how the stars move. About knowing how the a part of the world works. There's something about appreciating the beauty of a thing directly, without commentary or intermediary. It's something anyone can do, so it's democratic. It's the wide universe, which is awe-inspiring.
It doesn't make sense that seeing something through a 'scope should be any different than seeing a picture on a computer screen or a magazine, but there is a difference. The images are blurry, often shaky, but there's an analogue quality to it that's really appealing. You *know* the image hasn't been altered in any way, (at least not beyond the optics in the scope).
I feel I was quite lucky tonight to get to see Saturn, it's rings and the Cassini Division, 5 of it's moons, and the shadow of the planet on the rings. Someone claimed to see the "crepe belt" (which is a fuzzy interior ring) but I wasn't convinced (but then again I didn't really know what to look for anyway). I learned that at any point on the earth you can see exactly half the sky. I am at about 34 deg north latitude, and so I can see more of the northern hemisphere's stars, but I can see a big chunk of southern starts, too. I learned that the north star moves only about a degree throughout the year (or the night), and so the proportion of northern and souther sky does not vary over the year (it only varies according to latitude). I learned that the stars follow the sun, from east to west, through the night, and that they start a little later each night - and that this reflects the motion of the earth around the sun. I learned that when you are born an Aries this means that the Sun is in Aries, and so not visible in the night skies. I learned that the planets move in the plane of the ecliptic, which is different from the projection of the earth's equator on the star-field (which is 0 degrees declination). I learned that Beetljuice is Orion's shoulder, Regulus is his knee, and that Sirius is the brightest star in the sky (actually, I might have gotten mixed up on the Orion stuff). Tonight, Saturn was in "front" of Leo.
I still think it's weird that the rotation of the earth would cause the stars to move in exactly the same way as our orbit does. If you imagine the sky as an immense sphere, I suppose the earth's orbit isn't really that big, and can be neglected. What's happening can be understood, I guess, is that if you pick a time of night and you look at a particular spot far away from Polaris, and draw that as a line shooting from the earth. If you time lapse the rotation of the earth, that line will describe an arc on the celestial sphere. The next night, the same thing will happen, but the line will start a bit later. (This would be a perfect flash animation!)
I still don't really understand the motion of the planets, but I'm happy to have discovered some things about the stars. In particular, I'm glad to finally be convinced that its OK to visualize the celestial sphere as a rotating thing around polaris, and that I convinced myself that the orbit of the earth can really be neglected for celestial viewing (I'm sure you can't ignore it for planets!).
Some interesting what if questions: what if you were at a different lat (north pole, equator, south pole)? What if the earth's axial tilt was 0 deg rather than ~23 deg? What if it were 90 deg? What affect does you're altitude have on the visibility of the sky (I was thinking coverage, but I suppose you could also ask in respect to clarity)?
Some questions about the planets: why can we see the inner planets at all? Why doesn't the Sun always get in the way? Is there a constrained band in which they appear or do they appear anywhere? How can planets have phases - as outer planets should always be full and inner planets should always be new! What does gibbous mean anyway?
It's clear that astronomy is one of those hobbies, like baseball, that is a source of endless numbers, facts, and trivia. And like baseball, none of it is truly relevant to one's daily life, but it sure is fun!
I just got back from an impromptu meeting of sky watchers. I have to say there is something wonderful about seeing Saturn. And the moon. And the constellations being described by someone who knows what they're talking about! About knowing how the stars move. About knowing how the a part of the world works. There's something about appreciating the beauty of a thing directly, without commentary or intermediary. It's something anyone can do, so it's democratic. It's the wide universe, which is awe-inspiring.
It doesn't make sense that seeing something through a 'scope should be any different than seeing a picture on a computer screen or a magazine, but there is a difference. The images are blurry, often shaky, but there's an analogue quality to it that's really appealing. You *know* the image hasn't been altered in any way, (at least not beyond the optics in the scope).
I feel I was quite lucky tonight to get to see Saturn, it's rings and the Cassini Division, 5 of it's moons, and the shadow of the planet on the rings. Someone claimed to see the "crepe belt" (which is a fuzzy interior ring) but I wasn't convinced (but then again I didn't really know what to look for anyway). I learned that at any point on the earth you can see exactly half the sky. I am at about 34 deg north latitude, and so I can see more of the northern hemisphere's stars, but I can see a big chunk of southern starts, too. I learned that the north star moves only about a degree throughout the year (or the night), and so the proportion of northern and souther sky does not vary over the year (it only varies according to latitude). I learned that the stars follow the sun, from east to west, through the night, and that they start a little later each night - and that this reflects the motion of the earth around the sun. I learned that when you are born an Aries this means that the Sun is in Aries, and so not visible in the night skies. I learned that the planets move in the plane of the ecliptic, which is different from the projection of the earth's equator on the star-field (which is 0 degrees declination). I learned that Beetljuice is Orion's shoulder, Regulus is his knee, and that Sirius is the brightest star in the sky (actually, I might have gotten mixed up on the Orion stuff). Tonight, Saturn was in "front" of Leo.
I still think it's weird that the rotation of the earth would cause the stars to move in exactly the same way as our orbit does. If you imagine the sky as an immense sphere, I suppose the earth's orbit isn't really that big, and can be neglected. What's happening can be understood, I guess, is that if you pick a time of night and you look at a particular spot far away from Polaris, and draw that as a line shooting from the earth. If you time lapse the rotation of the earth, that line will describe an arc on the celestial sphere. The next night, the same thing will happen, but the line will start a bit later. (This would be a perfect flash animation!)
I still don't really understand the motion of the planets, but I'm happy to have discovered some things about the stars. In particular, I'm glad to finally be convinced that its OK to visualize the celestial sphere as a rotating thing around polaris, and that I convinced myself that the orbit of the earth can really be neglected for celestial viewing (I'm sure you can't ignore it for planets!).
Some interesting what if questions: what if you were at a different lat (north pole, equator, south pole)? What if the earth's axial tilt was 0 deg rather than ~23 deg? What if it were 90 deg? What affect does you're altitude have on the visibility of the sky (I was thinking coverage, but I suppose you could also ask in respect to clarity)?
Some questions about the planets: why can we see the inner planets at all? Why doesn't the Sun always get in the way? Is there a constrained band in which they appear or do they appear anywhere? How can planets have phases - as outer planets should always be full and inner planets should always be new! What does gibbous mean anyway?
It's clear that astronomy is one of those hobbies, like baseball, that is a source of endless numbers, facts, and trivia. And like baseball, none of it is truly relevant to one's daily life, but it sure is fun!
A wonderful short story
It's a very short, simple tail about a man in a hotel room and an unexpected event.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6481487.stm
The randomness of it resonates with me. This is an age where every event has meaning, mostly ominous and heralding 'terrorism'. This is a story of a man who's disorientation never devolves into fear.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/6481487.stm
The randomness of it resonates with me. This is an age where every event has meaning, mostly ominous and heralding 'terrorism'. This is a story of a man who's disorientation never devolves into fear.
Blogger atrophy
It's a beautiful night, a bit blustry, but cool rather than cold. A perfect evening to feel the refreshing sea air in your face. Before I go I wanted to blog a little bit. I don't really know if anyone reads this thing (certainly not since I stopped posting) so perhaps it doesn't matter. Certainly the ideas haven't stopped coming, but for some reason I've felt less like writing about it here. Perhaps it's the utter lack of feedback - what's the point sending out shots in the dark? None, unless the point is to have Blogger (Google now) host my personal journal for free.
OTOH blogging is still not 'in my blood'. I think that, like with Flickr, there are aspects of blogging that I still don't get. Like the community aspects. Trading links. Trackbacks. Really, it's all greek (geek?) to me. Kind of like Flickr communities. Part of the reason I think I resist learning this aspect is that it's too close to self-promotion, which fills me with supreme distaste for all kinds of irrational reasons. I am much happier creating a thing, letting the world have it, and then not telling them about it. That's what marketers are for, right?
Another issue, at least with this blog, is that it lacks focus. Categories (a new, quite welcome Blogger feature) would help with this, as presumably people could filter out the stuff they don't want. But I think a blog that's focused on software architecture and Java would be more successful than a random hodgepodge of...whatever. Certainly its worth a shot (and certainly I have plenty to say about software coding and design!)
Peace,
Josh
OTOH blogging is still not 'in my blood'. I think that, like with Flickr, there are aspects of blogging that I still don't get. Like the community aspects. Trading links. Trackbacks. Really, it's all greek (geek?) to me. Kind of like Flickr communities. Part of the reason I think I resist learning this aspect is that it's too close to self-promotion, which fills me with supreme distaste for all kinds of irrational reasons. I am much happier creating a thing, letting the world have it, and then not telling them about it. That's what marketers are for, right?
Another issue, at least with this blog, is that it lacks focus. Categories (a new, quite welcome Blogger feature) would help with this, as presumably people could filter out the stuff they don't want. But I think a blog that's focused on software architecture and Java would be more successful than a random hodgepodge of...whatever. Certainly its worth a shot (and certainly I have plenty to say about software coding and design!)
Peace,
Josh
The perils of ignorant dependance
So I came down with a cold on Wednesday, and was re-reading Lord of the Rings and came across a wonderful quote. It's from Gandalf, of course.
"Perilous to all of us are the devices of an art deeper than we ourselves possess."
This is spoken to Pippin after Gandalf realizes that Saruman has been perverted by his use of the palantÃr, a device made in the depths of time and no longer completely understood. It is, of course, a cautionary tale, and taken with a grain of salt I think there is great wisdom in it that can be applied to technology, but especially to computers. It is no coincidence that the palantÃr is essentially an communications device, like the modern day computer. I was pleased to run across this mailing list post by Kragen Sitaker that goes into some depth of explanation.
There are several lessons, actually. First, do not get frustrated with people, especially older ones, who stubbornly refuse to use certain kinds of technology. It may be stubbornness, but it may also be an intuitive understanding that nothing comes without it's cost.
Second, it brings to light how much of our lives are governed by "devices of an art deeper than we ourselves possess". Kragen uses the examples of software and cars, but certainly there are many other engineering feats that fall within this exegesis. I don't really know what it takes to build a road, for example, or a house, or how to weave or farm or do any of the many things it takes to keep me alive.
There is obviously something to be said here, but it's not clear if it's already been said. Certainly it is troubling to be so far removed from the activities that actually support my life. But the only peril that could really harm me is outright global catastrophe, I think. Our society is extremely skilled in understanding information, and if given sufficient incentive, recreate processes at virtually any level of the technological scale.
There are other perils, of course, of the "enemy of the state" variety - where one's "identity" is maliciously perverted or removed.
It is strange, our world. Life is so very easy with money; food is so cheap as to be free, even basic shelter (at least in most parts) may as well also be free. But with *no* money, it would be very hard to live. One cannot pick one's own food in the city. Certainly it would be difficult, if not impossible, to build one's own computer from raw materials. That in itself makes the computer perilous, I suppose.
In a sense, the entire society in which I live is a 'deeper art than I possess', because I don't really understand how it all fits together and why it doesn't all just fall apart. To use a physical analogy, why is society apparently stable, like an airplane, rather than unstable like a helicopter? Why does it all-of-a-sudden become unstable and convulse into revolution and war?
With respect to software, one thing is for certain: if you take Gandalf seriously, all computer users should understand computers to a far greater degree than they currently do. Since we all use computers now (in one form or another) that means we all should really understand them. Furthermore, we can minimize our peril by using thick client open source software. That way we can, if we have the skill and the desire, peek into the black box and see how the gears turn. Closed source software isn't so easy to peak into, but it is at least possible. Thin-client applications like Google are the most opaque; as a rule, one only sees the interface and has no chance to see how things work behind the scenes. Practically speaking, it makes no difference to the public-at-large, since the source code of Firefox is just as inaccessible as the algorithms of Google. Well, I think it makes a difference, and surely that counts for something?
A Road Trip I'd like to Take
As part of the publicity for Ferrari's new Maranello (the 599 GTB), they went on a little road trip.
I think I would like to do that, too, someday. I haven't done it already out of fear - the tales of corruption are hard to ignore, and I don't know how long I would last. Alone is vulnerable. Nowadays being American is vulnerable, too (thanks George!). Traveling with a pack of 50 journalists and with corporate sponsorship would make the journey a bit less risky.
Protecting our future with frozen seeds
This story appeals to my Science-Fiction sensibilities: Norway is paying $5m to squirrel away 1.5 million varieties of food crops in a remote, frozen, and elevated (to guard against the rising sea levels of global warming) seed vault, just in case biodiversity takes a plunge.
This project reminds me of the Australian thing where information is being etched on silicon blocks (I can't remember the name of the project), and the North American project to store nuclear waste safely for tens of thousands of years.
This project reminds me of the Australian thing where information is being etched on silicon blocks (I can't remember the name of the project), and the North American project to store nuclear waste safely for tens of thousands of years.
Yahoo! Pipes are pretty neat
O'Reilly Radar > Pipes and Filters for the Internet
Combine RSS feeds like Unix commands.
Combine RSS feeds like Unix commands.
Stranger than fiction
Astronaut faces attempted murder charges
I'm not normally a fan of this kind of story. But the irony here is just delicious: astronauts are the closest thing we have in our society to aristocracy. And for the most part, they stay out of the news. Of course, the higher they all, the harder they fall.
The right wing is going to shake their collective head and let that nagging doubt about women in the workplace speak a little more loudly. That's too bad because men are just as likely to act like idiots when they're in love.
This is definitely movie-fodder. Charlize Theron as Lisa Nowak?
I'm not normally a fan of this kind of story. But the irony here is just delicious: astronauts are the closest thing we have in our society to aristocracy. And for the most part, they stay out of the news. Of course, the higher they all, the harder they fall.
The right wing is going to shake their collective head and let that nagging doubt about women in the workplace speak a little more loudly. That's too bad because men are just as likely to act like idiots when they're in love.
This is definitely movie-fodder. Charlize Theron as Lisa Nowak?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)