Gypsies: A Persecuted Race: "Upon entering Christian Europe, the Roma realized much resentment was building because of their skin and social structure. So, they fabricated the story that they were descendants of the Egyptians who had enslaved the Israelites, explaining that for this reason God had condemned them to perpetual wandering. The Roma knew that many European countries were persecuting the Jews and that this false story would take some of the pressure off them. The story worked and the Roma became known as 'Gypsies' derived from the word Egyptian".
A pretty girl in crimson rose (eight letters). Good article on British cryptic crosswords and the people who set them. And which also takes me one step closer to being able to do the damn things.
It's similar to my obsession with Radio 4's Round Britain Quiz. It's team based, with cryptic questions based on general knowledge and the connections/associations between parts of the question. Every word counts. But it's structured as a guided conversation, and listening to it sounds like three people (the team plus the host) discussing in a language you can understand but with a structure and meaning you can't possibly follow. Intellectual Stanley Unwin. And at the end, after amiably chatting about cheese, New Zealand, bishops and mountain ranges, the host says "I'll give you 4 for that" and they move on. Wonderful like a sunny winter's day.
Chemistry guides evolution, claims theory: "As these primitive cells, or prokaryotes, extracted hydrogen from water they released oxygen, making the environment more oxidising. [...] But these oxidising elements could also damage the reducing chemistry in the cytoplasm. [...] For protection, there was just one option: isolate the elements within internal compartments, says Williams. And that gave rise to eukaryotes - single-celled organisms with a nucleus and other organelles". And then later, "Williams admits their theory has limitations. For instance, he agrees that Dawkins's argument is correct in that chance events drive the development of species. But he does not believe random events drive evolution overall. 'Whatever life throws away will become the thing that forces the next step in its development'."
So two interesting things in this article: first is that the choices made in one step of the evolution of a system become embedded in the environment for the next step (I'm happy with that). Second is the claim that this somehow removes chance, because if the system can only respond to the environment in a certain way, and the environment itself is actually a product of the system over time, then the path of development is inevitable. Which I'm not happy with. The mechanism of change isn't push, it isn't deciding on a solution and working towards it: it's pull, making all possible changes at once (given a large enough pool), and only the fit-for-purpose surviving. It's typical of what bugs me about New Scientist. A sensible, insightful idea (breaking the system/environment divide) spoiled by sensationalist journalism (the end of evolution!!!).
Paul Slazinger has had all his clothes and writing materials brought here. He is working on his first volume of non-fiction, to which he has given this title: The Only Way to Have a Successful Revolution in Any Field of Human Activity.
For what it's worth: Slazinger claims to have learned from history that most people cannot open their minds to new ideas unless a mind-opening team with a peculiar membership goes to work on them. Otherwise, life will go on exactly as before, no matter how painful, unrealistic, unjust, ludicrous, or downright dumb that life may be.
The team must consist of three sorts of specialists, he says. Otherwise, the revolution, whether in politics or the arts of the sciences or whatever, is sure to fail.
The rarest of these specialists, he says, is an authentic genius -- a person capable of having seeminly good ideas not in general circulation. 'A genius working alone,' he says, 'is invariably ignored as a lunatic.'
The second sort of specialist is a lot easier to find: a highly intelligent citizen in good standing in his or her community, who understands and admires the fresh ideas of the genius, and who testifies that the genius is far from mad. 'A person working like that alone,' says Slazinger, 'can only yearn out loud for changes, but fail to say what their shapes should be.'
The third sort of specialist is a person who can explain anything, no matter how complicated, to the satisfaction of most people, no matter how stupid or pigheaded they may be. 'He will say almost anything in order to be interesting or exciting,' says Slazinger. 'Working alone, depending solely on his own shallow ideas, he would be regarded as being as full of shit as a Christmas turkey.'
It seems to me that the music industry have more than half won if they've succeeded in setting the terms for debate such that it's an established fact that music sales have decreased. I've seen no proof of this. Especially not since: we've just moved out of the CD boom of people replacing their vinyl; we're in a recession, or at least a slow-down, and consumers are spending less; anecdotally, marketing budgets are down. This is even without: people might be spending their money on movies instead (I heard DVD sales are good); the big music labels are churning out manufactured crap that doesn't appeal to a large section of the market (grown-ups). And I think it's fair if I use myself as an example because I'm precisely the sort of person who downloads and shares music: I buy more CDs than I used to, not less. Have music sales genuinely gone down? I'm not convinced.
"It was a sunny Sunday afternoon, I was halfway through replacing the lock on my front door, and would you believe it: I ran out of nand gates. Damn. The door build is broken and I've got to go out to the shops".
I don't know what it is about writing for Upsideclown but occassionally I lapse into a kind of idle sci-fi, near-future mundane events. And that's what's happened today, but who cares cos I enjoy it. Fresh today: The same old subroutine.
The Optical Telegraph | "...a pivoting wooden panel, five feet tall, pained black on one side and white on the other. By flipping it from one colour to the other, Chappe could transmit the numbers on the synchronized clocks. A telescope could help to see the wooden panel from a great distance. On March 2, 1791 [Claude Chappe] sent a message 10 miles [16km] away. In about 4 minutes they transmitted the phrase: 'If you succeed, you will bask in glory'" [source]. This was the tachygraphe (rapid writer), then later: the telegraph, or far writer.
Chappe moved to a secure semaphore system (the Chappe code assigns numbers to flag positions; the meaning of these numbers is known only to those in charge). Napoleon sees the benefit and a 15 station line from Paris to Lille is built. The network grows. This history of the Chappe Telegraph System has some wonderful photographs of the semaphore towers, and points to a remarkable map of the system at its peak -- 556 stations over 4800km [source], with similar networks in Sweden, Denmark, England and many other countries. But it was not to last. By that time electronic telegraph was in the ascendent, and would grow to supplant the European semaphore networks.
I've run across a few simply remarkable resources on the optical telegraph and communication:
At the same time as Chappe, Edelcrantz was working on a similar telegraph device in Sweden, and something he wrote resonates with me: "It often happens, with regard to new inventions, that one part of the general public finds them useless and another part considers them to be impossible. When it becomes clear that the possibility and the usefulness can no longer be denied, most agree that the whole thing was fairly easy to discover and that they knew was significant" [Treatise on Telegraphs (1796)].
But this doesn't affect me as much as the fact that we're solving the same problems again and again, and I'm sure we should be looking more to history. Ever heard of the Western Union Telegraph clock?
To finish, I have a question. I remember reading about another potential communications network, also originating in France. It was based on sound, a way of simplifying language and encoding it into a five-tone system, such that it could be communicated across a battlefield using specially tuned cannons. This same language was also popular across Europe in other forms: in more detailed code to speak using trumpets, and as a stage act, showing off this method. It was championed by a single man, and never achieved success in the establishment. Do you know what it was called, or who the man was?
"I waited. My host continued to speak in near paragraphs": The McKee Recursion at Ftrain. Wonderful.
Ubiquitous computing is "roughly the opposite of virtual reality. Where virtual reality puts people inside a computer-generated world, ubiquitous computing forces the computer to live out here in the world with people. Virtual reality is primarily a horse power problem; ubiquitous computing is a very difficult integration of human factors, computer science, engineering, and social sciences". On this site are so of the most intelligent and ahead-of-their-time essays I've read. Ubicomp is a manifesto for what we should be building right now. And these guys have thought of it all already. Picking out two in particular:
The Coming Age of Calm Technology (1996) gives the wonderful example of the Dangling String that makes invisible ethernet traffic visible and understandable.
Building Invisible Interfaces (1994) powers its way through the nature of interfaces and the problems faced by ubicomp (where else have you seen a calculation of the maximum bandwidth available based on the surface area of the Earth?). And the ideas! In an energy scare world: "pushback to user what is hard or easy. color every button according to power-cost of pressing it" (in the real world!).
The Xeroc PARC Principles divide tasks into two sets (copying is easy, creating is hard. There are more) based on the Nature of Human Beings: "What are human being like? They are impatient, have short memories, are slow, awkward, have limited logical abilities, get easily confused, like pictures better than words, are control freaks, vary considerably in their habits and preferences, lazy, make lots of mistakes even on easy tasks, are overly sensitive, can be easily made to feel guilty and inadequate, have limited imagination". Out of this come the idioms of the modern day graphical user interface.
newdocms throws away the hierarchic nature of directory and subdirectory based filesystems, and implements a metadata system. It's pretty far advanced, and implemented for KDE. Check out the open and save dialogues. There's also a taxonomy feature, so searching for animals will find documents you've tagged as being about dogs. Neat.
Some answers to yesterday's question:
I've been thinking about this in terms of habits. Every so often my critical paths get mucked up. Everything is suddenly inefficient. I do everything wrong (dry in the wrong order after my shower, forget whether to make tea before or after turning the computer on). Why does this happen, after months of running on automatic?
Okay, so habits are good: they free the mind for important things. But habits are not necessarily optimal, so have to be shaken up every so often (like punctuated equilibrium). But what good is that if you do it on your own? Everyone else's habits and the habits of the environment will force you back into your groove.
(The idea being, the environment picks up habits from you. This is how special offers work. Lower the barrier to entry to go to Starbacks, and you go there more. Put it back up, and you still go there because your habit is now to cross the road earlier and so you're nearer it. Someone else, who used to walk in that spot at that time every morning now walks somewhere else because of your new behaviour. When you shift your walking position, you're displacing someone else's habit. Shifting back will be hard.)
In which case, if habit shake-up is a good thing but the environment puts a stop to it, then evolution will find an answer. There's not much to do about physical world's ingrained habits, but it is possible to do something about other people.
Concept: Habit-breaking days spread like a virus through the population, so everyone can shake up at once and settle into a better equilibrium. We're designed to trigger an internal shake-up of all habits if we're exposed to an external event that challenges any one of them (unexpected externalities puncture the stasis). That's why breaking one habit throws you off the groove completely, so it spreads to other people, outward and onward, and so on. I can't prove this, of course.
Question. What do you call the bits between the equilibria in punctuated equilibrium?
I'm more-or-less extremely intrigued by the Hep Message Server. It's software to abstract away the difference between different message types: In go RSS feeds, email; out come weblog posts, more email, html, or whatever. IMAP, WebDAV, Jabber are all two way.
See also: pyblosxom is a (Python) port of the tiny blosxom weblog software. Also, some musings on Hep with pyblosxom. Oh, and on a not-very-related note, Rohit Khare on generalising server to any resource over any protocol.
This is so close to where I've been thinking recently. Weblogs should indeed be thought of as a kind of flow of messages, outwards from the author, and routed and directed as necessary. Standard email filtering would be good for routing. The filesystem is good as a file store. Email is almost perfect as an extensible metadata format. Then it's a matter of putting the IM, email and www editing interfaces on top of that. Oh, and making it simple. Hm.
A couple of pieces of feedback on Lazy Mac OS X: Weblog links sidebar [how to post using the magic of AppleScript]:
I've got a few ideas for a part 2 article, mainly because there are limitations with this form of 'logging that are already frustrating me. Coming soon, hopefully.
"Lists of hyperlinks are the future of the web!" cries Anil Dash in his well futuristic list of hyperlinks. I'll echo that, but only because I'm really lazy, and posting a naked hyperlink is easier than link plus commentary.
So I've automated the process on Mac OS X. A link dragged to my desktop posts to my weblog automatically. (The machine-writable www is so much less effort than the machine-readable one.) How? All the details are in Lazy Mac OS X: Weblog links sidebar.
This is the first in what might well be a series of articles about how to hack things together in potentially useful (and pro-lazy) ways. Something that on OS X is within everybody's reach. I'm trying to explain as much as possible for that first nudge up the learning curve. There's not enough of that out there at the moment.
Adaptive design for weblog software | I've been thinking a little about software architecture, and primarily how to structure it to encourage two qualities:
(based on the assumption that no program is going to be ideally suited when originally created, but that an iterative period will cause it to be better suited to use).
The spectrum of software development has two ends. On one end is the push model (yes, I'm going to lapse into the push/pull dichotomy again), which is the model where you set your sights on a goal, and build a tower to get there (like Windows). On the other end is the pull model, which is more like an ecology. Tiny steps, filling niches, each new piece of development just taking advantage of what's already there, and creating new capabilities -- like, life creates conditions conducive to life, in everything that it does. But it's undirected, not goal oriented, and slow. It can't be forced.
I've come to think that the Unix philosophy is towards the pull end. It's slow and steady, and each small piece is selected to be the fittest. Not only are components evolved, but abstraction layers too. But it's slow.
So every so often somebody looks ahead and says "We could do this instead!" so they leap and (in a fill of push development) make something that doesn't fit in with the ecology, like, well, Microsoft Word, or Quicktime, or maybe even XML. Then slowly, slowly, the ecology follows that leap ahead, and does it in its own way. There's a lot of idea-sharing involved, between both sides.
Anyway, I think pull is better, for two reasons. Firstly, because I think the resultant software itself is better. diff, patch and grep (say) are brilliant at what they do. And I think they've got there because they're separate programs, rather than as components of an application. Evolution can't happen to an application, it can only happen between applications. It's application versus application, but imagine how much better it would be instead if you could take the best parts of Microsoft Word and merge them with the best parts of BBEdit.
Trying to evolve a single monolithic application is like trying to order using bogo-sort.
The second reason is that pull is a way of exploring the software landscape. A push model of development by its very nature means developing in a deliberate direction, which means features are limited by the imagination of developers. Exploring with pull on the other hand means the only limitation is how people - any people - combine the parts. Ideas for free, almost.
And I guess this is what people call adaptive design.
Those are the two qualities I mentioned at the beginning. How to design software to itself be evolvable, and be open to other possibilities in the greater software ecology? (Incidentally, I don't think we've had the fundamental improvements necessary in the ecology since diff and patch. XML is a leap-ahead; the ecology needs a better form of structured text, because then we can have solidly grounded zoomable interfaces.)
It's a way of designing software to allow features to be shallow.
Start with weblogs! There needs to be flexibility both in the components, and the abstraction layers themselves between the components (the second is the tricky bit). We can take some hints by looking at what's already in the software ecology. So, some design decisions.
Although both input and output into the datastore are unspecified here, and many systems will jostle for ways, some suggestions:
Because of these principles, the system will work with any combination of input styles so long as the output of them is recognised, like the Movable Type text formatting approach.
Okay, so I'm looking at something that involves parts of RESTlog, parts of blosxom. It takes design hints from the way mail systems hang together: procmail for filtering, mbox or similar as a plaintext storage format, simple protocols to view and send mail... (Oh, and now you've read all of this, go back and read the comments in the hyperlink tooltips. There's yet more in those.)
So the rock-hard-evidence-based message of Bowling Alone is that social involvement has been declining drastically in recent generations. Or rather, social capital has been declining. One line definition: Capital means stuff of value, and having people who will do you favours (from not cutting you up on a road junction, to giving blood) is to do with your social circle, how much trust there is with the people you interact with, and how involved you are with society. High social capital is good.
Problem being, social capital - in America at least - has been in sharp decline since the early 1960s, and people are worse off because of it. The roots of this decline are in the early 1940s, and more in the post-war period. Putnam points the finger at commuting, suburbanisation and television as causes for this drop. However, what Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs and Steel teaches us is to look beyond proximate causes and search for the ultimate factors.
Sure, says Diamond, the Europeans were the ones who invaded South America and not vice-versa, and the proximate cause is that the Europeans had guns, ships, civilisation. But ultimately, why was that? It was because there were domesticable crops and animals in Euroasia, and barely any across the Pacific. It was because the crops there were spread easily on the long east/west axis of the European landmass, but America has a north/south axis which means a climate change gradient that crops can't move along so easily. Such are ultimate causes.
Aren't we already discovering the ultimate causes of social capital decline? Possibly, but I doubt it. If were weren't primed for a collapse, wouldn't that generation that grew up with television internalise it in a different way? Would centralised television networks have arisen? If the pursuit of social capital is intrinsic to human nature, wouldn't those values override the damage to the community that suburbanisation causes, and create a different kind of not-rural-but-not-urban lifestyle?
My contention: that humanity, being part of the real world, is maximally complex. Social capital isn't just something which is accidentally high or low depending on the structure of our society -- if it's something useful to humanity, then the feedback loop must be closed: humanity will have evolved in such a way as to promote social capital.
And because humanity's been around for a long time, there'll be a stabilising influence, a Le Chatelier's principle to keep the equilibrium at a point of high social capital. The human race must be self-selecting for just this attribute.
Well so we're obviously no longer in equilibrium. What's happened? Look at the dates -- the roots of the decline are around 1945. Marie Curie started fractioning radioactive compounds around the turn of the century, and atmospheric radiation started rising in the early 1940s till 1960s with nuclear tests in Nevada and elsewhere, and has been rising since. The cumulative effect of this means that people born after 1945 can be distinguished by their radioactivity from people born before that year. As people grow up with radioactivity, or later are born to radioactive parents, the effect grows. Global fertility has halved since 1945.
Putnam has noticed that social capital took another beating in the 1990s -- is this to do with the growth of materialism, or the Chernobyl accident of 1986?
Here's a thought. Whenever you make a decision about what to do, you weigh up the costs and benefits of generalised reciprocity. Basically speaking, if you're altruistic, what fraction of that altruism will eventually return to you from people in general? When it comes around, how much is gone? That estimated factor is how you measure whether to be a good citizen. It's an behavioural influence universal to all our activities just like mood, or tiredness. And since feeling, anxiety and so on are governed by brain chemistry, why not the reciprocity factor?
Perhaps, just perhaps, there's a chemical in the brain which sets, by its level, your expectations of society. And the processes that produce that chemical are especially susceptible to the unprecedented levels of radiation now present. And as radioactive substances build up in mothers, and move up the food chain and accumulate, so the proportion of affected people grows in society, and the effects of this diminished social capital makes themselves felt.
It all fits. Here I quote from an analysis of current-day social capital, and a study that measures how much social capital is in present in the states of America, Social Capital Measurement and Consequences: "There are a few outliers to the general pattern. Nevada is lower than where it should be; perhaps if you know something about Nevada you have guesses as to why this might be true". Indeed.
Safari Enhancer enables the debug menu (and a couple of other things) in Safari, Apple's new web browser. The debug menu lets you browser the DOM and, nicely, provides an interface for testing how arbitrary html snippets are rendered.
If you don't want to use the enhancer application, go to the Terminal and type "defaults write com.apple.Safari IncludeDebugMenu 1" to switch the debug menu on, and "defaults delete com.apple.Safari IncludeDebugMenu" to remove it.
Some favourite turns of phrase from Bowling Alone, The Collapse and Revival of American Community.
"'[New York] is a splendid desert - a domed and steepled solitude, where a stranger is lonely in the midst of a million of his race,' wrote Mark Twain in 1867. 'A man walks his tedious miles through the same interminable street every dat, elbowing his way through a buzzing multitude of men, yet never seeing a familiar face, and never seeing a strange one the second time'". [p207]
"The outside world has become an abstraction filtered through television, just as the weather is an abstraction filtered through air conditioning". [p224, quoting James Howard Kuntsler]
"...found that TV watching has such a powerful impact on civic engagement that one hour less daily viewing is the civic-vitamin equivalent of five or six more years of education". [p238, my emphasis]
This is a great first wave book, incidentally. A solid foundation, comprehensively argued with masses of research. What will be fascinating is the second wave of arguments that takes this knowledge presupposed.
David A Hardy is a space artist. His AstroArt homepage has galleries of art done for science fiction magazines, book covers and commissioned material. Landscapes with two suns, planets with rings, spacemen and the such. Fantastic. My favourite includes a dinosaur, as all good illustrations do.
Another sci-fi artist: The Chris Foss Tribute Page has tons of scans of the airbrushed spaceship pictures that covered most of the books I had when I was a kid.
"Plastic bags don't kill people. Guns kill people". The first Upsideclown of the 2003 is up: New beginnings.
Feeling rather flat and uncreative, not a great start to 2003. I need one of these for everything that I do.