"the randomness that emerged from such precisely set-up machinery ... where, in the end, gravity always won"

From "Transition" by Iain Banks - in the voice of Patient 8262:

In Detroit I played pinball, in Yohohama pachinko, in Tashkent bagatelle. I found all three games enthralling, fascinated by the randomness that emerged from such highly structured, precisely set-up machinery knocking shining spheres of steel from place to place within a setting where, in the end, gravity always won. The comparison with our own lives is almost too obvious, yet still it gives us an inkling into our fates and what drives us to them. It is only an inkling, because we are submerged within a vastly more complicated environment than the clicking, bouncing steel balls and the pins and bands and buffers and walls they collide with - our course is more like that of a particle within a smoke chamber, subject to Brownian motion, and we are at least nominally possessed of free will - but by reducing, simplifying, it allows to grasp of something otherwise too great for us to comprehend in the raw.

Filed under  //  literature   words  
Comments (0)
Posted

"Fair enough, people died. But they must have deserved it."

Deluded fans of cop-hating Raoul Moat turned up uninvited at his funeral yesterday to pay their own twisted tributes.

Jobless mum-of-eight Theresa Bystram, 45, took three teenage sons on a 300-mile coach trip so they could pay homage.

...

"He kept them coppers on the run all that time. Fair enough, people died. But they must have deserved it."

 

Filed under  //  words   wtf  
Comments (0)
Posted

Orwell feared that what we hate will ruin us; Huxley feared that what we love will ruin us

Filed under  //  literature   words  
Comments (0)
Posted

In my next life I want to live my life backwards

In my next life I want to live my life backwards. You start out dead and get that out of the way. Then you wake up in an old people's home feeling better every day. You get kicked out for being too healthy, go collect your pension, and then when you start work, you get a gold watch and a party on your first day. You work for 40 years until you're young enough to enjoy your retirement. You party, drink alcohol, and are generally promiscuous, then you are ready for high school. You then go to primary school, you become a kid, you play. You have no responsibilities, you become a baby until you are born. And then you spend your last 9 months floating in luxurious spa-like conditions with central heating and room service on tap, larger quarters every day and then Voila! You finish off as an orgasm!

-- Woody Allen

Filed under  //  funny   words  
Comments (0)
Posted

Do Not Go Gentle into That Good Night

Villanelle by Dylan Thomas, 1951

Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Filed under  //  literature   poetry   pretty   words  
Comments (0)
Posted

my favourite part of robert byrd's 50 years in the senate

Goosebumps every time:

At 4 p.m. Sunday afternoon -- nine hours before the 1 a.m. vote that would effectively clinch the legislation's passage -- Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) went to the Senate floor to propose a prayer. "What the American people ought to pray is that somebody can't make the vote tonight," he said. "That's what they ought to pray."

It was difficult to escape the conclusion that Coburn was referring to the 92-year-old, wheelchair-bound Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.) who has been in and out of hospitals and lay at home ailing. It would not be easy for Byrd to get out of bed in the wee hours with deep snow on the ground and ice on the roads -- but without his vote, Democrats wouldn't have the 60 they needed.

 
[...]
 
Coburn was wearing blue jeans, an argyle sweater and a tweed jacket with elbow patches when he walked back into the chamber a few minutes before 1 a.m. He watched without expression when Byrd was wheeled in, dabbing his eyes and nose with tissues, his complexion pale. When his name was called, Byrd shot his right index finger into the air as he shouted "aye," then pumped his left fist in defiance.

Filed under  //  politics   words  
Comments (0)
Posted

Rich and Su's wedding

Well, it's been forever and a day since my last post. But what better occasion to merit an update than the wedding of my friends Rich and Su?

The wedding was novel for a couple of reasons: firstly, the festivities were near Paphos, in Cyprus; and secondly, I was best man!

An incredible number of people made it out to the island, with most people turning into a mini-holiday and staying for a week. Personally, I was staying in a villa with a bunch of friends from my IBM days, and we had a great time maxing and relaxing in the days before the wedding itself. Lots of barbecues, lots of G&Ts, and lots of lovely food, the highlights of which were definitely the fillet steak at €24/kg and tiger prawns at €11/kg.

On the wedding day itself, I tried to keep Rich's nerves as steady as possible with a fairly calm schedule - a trip down to Su's hotel to drop off a couple of prezzies, a bit of table tennis and then sprucing ourselves up for the main event. Table tennis produced the first slip-up of the day, in that Rich, chasing an errant ball, did actually slip-up into the pool, fully clothed, much to our amusement.

After drying off and getting suited and booted came hitch number two, when the buses ferrying the hundreds of friends and family around left earlier than expected, stranding some people. After some frantic phoning, that was resolved, and everyone made it in plenty of time.

The venue was a little restaurant perched on the side of a hill overlooking the Mediterranean, with the service itself actually happening under a little gazebo just outside. From here on in, everything was plain sailing.

Plain sailing, that is, until Eyjafjallajökull decided to explode the very same day.

We found out the next morning, when I popped round to Rich's Dad's place to do some snorkeling (which would become a fixture over the next few days). At that time, there was very little information: lots of flights were being canceled, but there was no indication as to how long it would continue, whether airlines would cover accommodation, whether alternative routes might be do-able, and so on.

A few people were inconvenienced immediately, as they had to be home for the weekend. Luckily, I wasn't one of them, although I had a flight booked to Toronto in a week's time. Surely, things would be sorted by then, I thought!

However, as the days passed, and the flight restrictions remained resolutely in place, I started to get nervous, and looked at other ways to get back to the UK. If Cyprus hadn't been an island, I would definitely have hired a car and driven it. Google Maps reckoned it was a 2-3 day trip, but with two people, it wouldn't have been too bad, and what an adventure! Unfortunately, the ferry to Greece took two days, and the word was that car hire was very much more in demand than supply anyway...

Luckily, easyJet, Air Canada and HSBC insurance were all great, agreeing to move flights around and pay for alternative accommodation without so much as a grumble (although I'm yet to file my claim...). Initially, my flight was moved back ten days, which took a huge chunk out the time I'd planned to spend in Toronto, and there was no guarantee even that flight would be possible.

In the end, camping at the airport did the trick, as although the online booking systems were showing as completely full, most flights were actually going backwards and forwards half-empty, due to the re-scheduling bonanza that had been happening. I got back to the UK five days late, and headed out to Toronto the very next day.

Filed under  //  personal   words  
Comments (0)
Posted

People opposed to proportional representation due to the voice it would give to the far right are mislead

Despite finishing a distant 3rd (in terms of seats), the Liberal Democrats are currently wielding more power than Labour, as it is up to them whether to form a coalition with the Conservatives, and on what terms that coalition might be formed.

There have been hints at electoral reform from all sides, and a move to proportional representation might be on the cards, as it would undoubtedly benefit Lib Dem in future elections.

There have also been warnings that PR would have given the far-right a lot of clout in Westminster - something like 30 seats (between UKIP and the BNP) versus 6 or 7 for the Green party, for example. Although the plural of anecdote isn't data, tweets like this show people are worried about the disruptive effect those extreme conservatives could have:

Why I don't want PR: today, the BNP would have 20 seats, UKIP 23, we'd have a hung parliament and the Tories would be negotiating with them.

Aside: searching twitter for UKIP, BNP and PR is interesting: http://search.twitter.com/search?q=ukip+bnp+pr

However, I completely disagree with that argument, for a number of reasons.

Firstly, as Ben Goldacre says, "they're despicable, but they're citizens". Every political group obviously has a tendency to regard their position and policies as superior, but we cannot be so arrogant as to disenfranchise people we disagree with. The idea of using electoral procedure to silence a large swathe of the population should be abhorrent to us.

Secondly, the difficulty those extreme parties have had in gaining representation in Westminster plays into their hands to some extent, as it allows them to paint themselves as the scrappy, plucky, ugly underdog that would have succeeded if it wasn't for The Man setting unfair rules. Decades of Disney films have inured us to sympathise with that position.

Lastly, but most importantly: between them, UKIP and the BNP got 5% of the vote nationally. That's an enormous number, and is way, way up compared to the last election. The fact that their policies are so distasteful to us, and yet so popular in certain areas and in certain demographics shows us there's clearly something going on that we don't understand. And they are not all brainwashed morons; they're not all unable to comprehend the liberal viewpoint: they just choose not to buy into it.

As Noam Chomsky said, these are real people with real grievances, and the only politicians effectively communicating with them, and giving them an outlet to channel their disenchantment into, is the far-right.

These are real people, and their viewpoint is just as valid as yours; if it comes from a position of ignorance, it is because the media and the major political parties have not done anything like a good enough job to show them viable alternatives. We are ignorant of their environment and their pressures.

We shouldn't be hoping to silence or ignore these voters, and we can't afford to ridicule them for the views they hold because disenfranchisement, either real or imagined, is what leads to true extremism. There's already over 1.5 million people in that category, and it's growing fast.

Filed under  //  election   politics   words  
Comments (0)
Posted

Dr. Seuss proves that the halting problem is undecidable

No program can say what another will do.
Now, I won’t just assert that, I’ll prove it to you:
I will prove that although you might work til you drop,
you can’t predict whether a program will stop.

Imagine we have a procedure called P
that will snoop in the source code of programs to see
there aren’t infinite loops that go round and around;
and P prints the word “Fine!” if no looping is found.

You feed in your code, and the input it needs,
and then P takes them both and it studies and reads
and computes whether things will all end as they should
(as opposed to going loopy the way that they could).

Well, the truth is that P cannot possibly be,
because if you wrote it and gave it to me,
I could use it to set up a logical bind
that would shatter your reason and scramble your mind.

Here’s the trick I would use – and it’s simple to do.
I’d define a procedure – we’ll name the thing Q -
that would take any program and call P (of course!)
to tell if it looped, by reading the source;

And if so, Q would simply print “Loop!” and then stop;
but if no, Q would go right back to the top,
and start off again, looping endlessly back,
til the universe dies and is frozen and black.

And this program called Q wouldn’t stay on the shelf;
I would run it, and (fiendishly) feed it itself.
What behaviour results when I do this with Q?
When it reads its own source, just what will it do?

If P warns of loops, Q will print “Loop!” and quit;
yet P is supposed to speak truly of it.
So if Q’s going to quit, then P should say, “Fine!” -
which will make Q go back to its very first line!

No matter what P would have done, Q will scoop it:
Q uses P’s output to make P look stupid.
If P gets things right then it lies in its tooth;
and if it speaks falsely, it’s telling the truth!

I’ve created a paradox, neat as can be -
and simply by using your putative P.
When you assumed P you stepped into a snare;
Your assumptions have led you right into my lair.

So, how to escape from this logical mess?
I don’t have to tell you; I’m sure you can guess.
By reductio, there cannot possibly be
a procedure that acts like the mythical P.

You can never discover mechanical means
for predicting the acts of computing machines.
It’s something that cannot be done. So we users
must find our own bugs; our computers are losers!

Filed under  //  funny   geek   words  
Comments (0)
Posted

World's shortest explanation of Gödel's theorem

We have some sort of machine that prints out statements in some sort of language. It needn't be a statement-printing machine exactly; it could be some sort of technique for taking statements and deciding if they are true. But let's think of it as a machine that prints out statements.

In particular, some of the statements that the machine might (or might not) print look like these:

P*x (which means that the machine will print x)
NP*x (which means that the machine will never print x)
PR*x (which means that the machine will print xx)
NPR*x (which means that the machine will never print xx)

For example, NPR*FOO means that the machine will never print FOOFOO. NP*FOOFOO means the same thing. So far, so good.

Now, let's consider the statement NPR*NPR*. This statement asserts that the machine will never print NPR*NPR*.

Either the machine prints NPR*NPR*, or it never prints NPR*NPR*.

If the machine prints NPR*NPR*, it has printed a false statement. But if the machine never prints NPR*NPR*, then NPR*NPR* is a true statement that the machine never prints.

So either the machine sometimes prints false statements, or there are true statements that it never prints.

So any machine that prints only true statements must fail to print some true statements.

Or conversely, any machine that prints every possible true statement must print some false statements too.

Filed under  //  cs   geek   maths   words  
Comments (0)
Posted