Pharkie's blog

Installing MongoDB on a Rackpace Cloud server (SOLVED)

2011-07-31T21:45:00.000+01:00

Just to get this technical note on the Internets for general helpfulness of humanity..

After following the main MongoDB instructions, I was stumped with "Error: couldn't connect to server 127.0.0.1 shell/mongo.js:79". Mongod had started but I couldn't 'mongo'. This was NOT a mongoDB problem, despite all the rest of the advice on the internet telling you to set the datadir, check permissions, uninstall the packages, try a different package etc.

I should have thought earlier to use my own brain. The problem was the server's own firewall preventing mongo from accessing port 27017. Specifically, the Rackspace sample iptables ruleset does not allow an SSHd user to 'mongo': Rackspace Cloud sample iptables.

So if you followed the official YouTube video on setting up your Rackspace Cloud server you'll hit this issue. Rackspace Cloud setup video by Chad. My cloud server is Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid but I expect any Rackspace cloud server configured as above will encounter this. To save you the hours of troubleshooting I've just undergone, this will sort you out:

[After following the MongoDB 'Quickstart' instructions and the stuff on the page above, installing from the mongodb-10gen package]

sudo iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 27017 -j ACCEPT
sudo iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport 28017 -j ACCEPT
sudo iptables -A INPUT -s 127.0.0.1 -j ACCEPT
sudo iptables -A OUTPUT -s 127.0.0.1 -j ACCEPT
sudo bash -c "iptables-save > /etc/iptables.up.rules"

This assumes you followed Chad's instructions (around time 10:00) to reference /etc/iptables.up.rules from /etc/network/interfaces:

pre-up iptables-restore < /etc/iptables.up.rules

Do that, reboot your cloud server from the Rackspace web management interface - and you'll be able to 'mongo' on your server (and remotely).

Make sure you add 'auth = true' to /etc/mongodb.conf (also adding an 'admin' user via mongo) so that the web interface on http://www.yoursite.com:28017 isn't too useful to people.

An insight from acting

2011-07-19T13:20:00.000+01:00

One of the remarkable things I discovered in my brief acting course was this:

"It's easier to act yourself into an emotion than feel your way to an action". Shake your fist and frown, you'll feel angry. Smile, you feel happy. Much research is available to back this up, though I'm too lazy to list it here - but today I had a little reminder from this article linked from a tweet:

"Humans and other animals express power through open, expansive postures, and powerlessness through closed, constrictive postures. But can these postures actually cause power?" The answer is "a person can, via a simple two-minute pose, embody power and instantly become more powerful"
- http://www.leadershipembodiment.com/postures.html

'Power' is a tricky word here: it's meant in its helpful guise, the ability to enact useful change, rather than 'power over'.

I went into acting because while 80% of communication is non-verbal I was spending 80% of my time and effort on the other 20%, the words and the research. So my congruence and self-awareness of 80% of my communication was minimal. Bringing that forward into consciousness, even a little, has been a great thing to attempt.

Actions speak louder than words (particularly silence).

I hope to do more acting, but not quite yet.

TwitterMe

2011-07-17T16:14:00.004+01:00

A project manager with no plan

2011-07-04T12:40:00.003+01:00

My second post on my recent acting training course in London, which featured the most glorious, beautiful bunch of classmates. Hello to those folk if you're reading. If not, you were the one I thought was truly awful.

We did many classes: acting for TV, a spot of Shakespeare, movement, modern plays, voice. The one that had the most impact for me was Impro. Improvised drama and theatre, rather than comedy, though we quickly discovered disturbingly hilarious scenarios are utterly inevitable.

You start a scene, standing and you speak second, never first. You act high or low status (submissive or dominant) and demonstrate with your body a simple emotion, let's say 'joy'. Another character enters, your new friend that minutes before was tasked only with a blueberry muffin. But now your new playmate must speak first to tell you why you're feeling what you're feeling. Up until that point you didn't know, you really didn't know - and neither did he because he didn't know what emotion you'd go for.

You might have your own ideas on why you feel your emotion, but you leave them aside. You accept what he says as fact: you were just promoted to captain on Starbase Alpha and you're looking forward, apparently, to celebrating with the crew down on planet Zorg, except your legs are robot legs and they're a bit unreliable.

As the story unfolds, you discover it at the same time as your audience and at the same time as your fellow actors. You embrace the uncertainty, ride the rollercoaster while it's still under construction, it's you that's building it. Your playmate may misread your original emotion, you might accidentally transplant the scene three hundred years backwards, speak nonsense, dry up completely. The scene always continues.

The story always tends toward stability: the end of something, the resolution, the refusal of the characters to speak with one another, or into complete chaos. Stability is dull. There's no drama there, at the extremes, at the ends. If you've driven into a wall you have nowhere to go, if you've dug too deep a hole you can't get out. Steering it between those magnetic extremes is a huge challenge, a balancing act, rolling a ball-bearing around a wooden maze of holes.

As project manager I plan months in advance. My job is to reduce and remove uncertainty, fight it toe-to-toe in a constant, eternal battle, day after day. I've trained and practised this for over a decade. Supplying coping strategies to corporations.

But here I am naked, no timing plan, no estimate, no scope of work, reacting now to what happened just now. As honestly as I'm able and not even as as me but as a character - a character I only find out along the way. You have to trust your team completely. You can't react to something you've missed so you really pay attention to what they're trying to communicate, verbally and otherwise - and there's no time to anticipate even 2 sentences in advance. Incredibly tricky to do right, but wonderfully exciting and great fun.

More than that, planning or being fully engaged in the present moment - which is the closer match to reality?

A brief introduction to acting

2011-06-28T11:42:00.000+01:00

A short four weeks ago I met a new group of 15 people in a room in central London. We closed our eyes and crawled over each other on the floor.

That was day one of acting school, which culminated on Sunday with a run of our one-act plays in front of a live studio audience. I loved the experience and hope to scribble some thoughts here.

A key thing for me was that as an actor one must be aware of one's body. It's easy to acknowledge this intellectually, but it takes a simple exercise and mere seconds to show most people that they have remarkably little idea what their body is doing at any given moment, myself included.

You stand up straight, assertive, looking straight at people's eyes. But you're fidgeting with your hands.

You attempt 'unsure' and move slowly, relax your body, look down - but you come across as cocky, confident, couldn't-care-less.

This is a problem for an actor, though the start of learning a skill that will pay royally in acting and otherwise.

In an exchange with someone, look at their eyes, look away, look back, look away and refuse to look back. You've lowered your status, marked yourself as submissive, if only for a moment. With two brief movements of your eyes.

Think how many muscles and moves the body is capable of. Each scratch, wiggle of an eyebrow, blink, intake of breath the audience searches through for meaning (so long as you've given them a reason to).

So in one interaction between two characters you have hundreds of these factors to deal with, bodily signals to align to your ends. In a scene, thousands. In an act, millions. In a play, multiply, multiply.

You can't script and control these individually, so you must trust 99% of them to your unconscious. So you try to really feel what's going on for your character. You are your character, you are your body, your body is your character.

When it stops, the scene over, more than once this has left me dazed and confused, emotional, delirious.

Who am I?

Svengali

2011-06-10T17:04:00.009+01:00

"We're here to deliver a petition", I said to the policeman at the top of Downing Street.

"What's it about?"

"Cuts to nurses" I replied, failing to consider that nurses are probably perfectly capable of taking care of cuts on their own.

"We have three signatures", I continued, "although one of them is you".

At this point I noticed a change in his demeanour. As if he wasn't taking us seriously. I probably imagined this, because it was five minutes to six in the morning and we were clearly three sheets to the wind. This may have already made his quick-witted policeman mind cautious about our authenticity. He giggled, grinned and playfully wiggled his semi-automatic gun.

As we approached Big Ben, gleaming brilliant gold in bright dawn sunshine, he rang. Bong, bong, bong, bong, bong, bonggg. Hello Ben, it's been quite some time.

We went to visit Brian Haw, but he wasn't up, lazy bastard. We resigned ourselves to talking loudly about the fact he wasn't up just outside his canvas abode.

Because we'd been out with Derren Brown that night, you see. Drinking in the same pub at least. After his show, the first night of his run of 'Svengali' in London. I can't quite place where in the show he gave me the instruction to drink 4 pints and meet him there.

On his way out, he gave me a kiss. 'Nice beard' he said. I think he was trying to manipulate me into choosing the number '4'. And I'll never know what for. Not until I wake up age 63 on a desert island with only the vaguest sense of once co-ordinating a worldwide hacking project and depositing £10 million in someone else's bank account.

A note on serendipity

2011-05-11T12:47:00.000+01:00

So much more these days I'm having brilliant things happen apparently out of sheer good luck.

I added an old colleague, Peter Gander, on Facebook and said in my welcome message that I'd been to his part of the world recently, Whitstable. Lovely place by the sea: me and Slawek enjoyed a lovely pint of Shepherd Neame in the blustery sea air. A short conversation later, he sends his hand-illustrated postcards about the place to me in the post:

My friend Ricky mentioned he was thinking of going to Brighton in the next few days. As it happens I'd just finished my notice at work, so I was free. I said that sounds good - and before you know it we're on the train for a couple of nights there. Brilliant!

I use serendipity in preference to synchronicity, though there appears to be a wide-ranging confusion about any distinction. If only because the latter is used in peculiar ways to imply something supernatural, I prefer the former with its origin in literature: 'The Three Princes of Serendip' whose heroes "were always making discoveries, by accidents and sagacity, of things they were not in quest of".

Celebrating Zombie Jesus Weekend

2011-04-26T15:29:00.003+01:00

Jesus died at the start of Easter and my friends nearly did too: a crash with an HGV on the motorway, the car written off. But the computer hardware came off intact. And the human cargo was fine too: my weekend gaming partners (Andy) Lockett, Chris and Doherty.

The scene: Newbury race course grandstands. A vast but temporary network of power and cabling. Four huge floors each with 400 gaming desks, split across two buildings - plus a central 'live finals arena' with spectator seating and trade stands. Thousands in prize money. If it didn't exist, you wouldn't think to invent it.

4am, 4am, 2am for Friday, Saturday, Sunday - so not quite 'Insomnia', the event title. Take it easy: we were never going to last as long as the hordes of rampaging teenagers. Rampaging in the Unreal Tournament sense.

In a different timeline these valiant young men would be out fighting for their country. Using not dissimilar skills. But our generation doesn't have wars like that. So we sit in front of the biggest screen we can afford and pretend. For fun.

Newbury took care of us with it's canalside pubs and warm weather. Rained in London apparently. While I fried eggs on a fold-up barbeque in the sunshine.

You see what you need is a waterproof, heat-conductive container. Fortunately for me, Lockett was given a 'Things to make' book one Summer age 6 and has been practising ever since constructing just such things. In my case from tin foil. Andy - don't doubt it - is handy.

After an epic 'pub quiz' in the live finals arena, Doherty entered the 'boat race' (and lost). While others streamed the new Dr Who from iPlayer, Lockett and me completed Co-op Portal 2, a new, funny and genuinely innovative game featuring Stephen Merchant as an uncertain robot that guides your two robots around a futuristic testing facility.

Every now and again a cheer would go up from somewhere in the room, some objective reached, some achievement accomplished. Or someone would at random initiate a game of 'butt scratcher', inviting a reply of the same, or comedy rhyming variant, which must be shouted at maximum volume - and no less. This game came into it's own around 2am when beer finally dominated energy drinks. MARGARET THATCHER.

And as a team of four in the frenetic battle to see how long you last in 'Left for Dead 2', we lasted 12 long, Zombie-shootin' minutes. The winners got to 144 minutes.

Our minutes were higher quality, I like to think. And to be fair, those guys were probably some of the world's best gamers, high on caffeine, running hardware so expensive it ought to be measured in mosquito nets for ethiopians, or how many nurses' jobs could be safeguarded instead, or how much of Kate Middleton's dress you could get for it. You're right, probably not much.

And now homeward bound, tent packed away, cowboy hat in tow. Leaving a thousand beer cans to recycle, ten thousand energy drink cans, some grass to sort out for the horses. Back on a train, Reading to Paddington, then a couple circuits of Regents Park on the cycle home. Good game.

As one T-shirt on Easter Sunday put it, 'Happy Zombie Jesus Day'.

Wizzo and man

The site at Newbury

Evening at the campsite

Daytime at the campsite

Doherty (in background) in the Boat Race

One of the main gaming floors

Panorama of the stage at the Live Finals Arena

Our team at the Pub Quiz

Blogs are dead. Long live blogs!

2011-04-26T15:25:00.000+01:00

Bizarrely close to exactly two years since my last post on this blog, it's time to revive it! Not in quite its previous form. The things that interest me now are slightly different to the things on my mind all that time ago, though perhaps more an evolution than a revolution.

Who said blogs aren't relevant in today's Twittery Facebook-soaked world? I probably did. But here goes an experiment in changing my mind.

And what better time to start blogging again than as I head off into what will hopefully be a pretty strange period of my life? Having resigned my full-time job recently with no job to go to and only a vague sense I want to enact some kind of interesting change, I'll post here my thoughts as I go.

Getting to know digital better

2009-04-29T17:33:00.002+01:00

You know, people often ask me "Adam, how on Earth do you get so clever about all things digital". If you were to ask me, I'd probably say:

• Don’t Make Me Think by Krugg, obviously.
• http://mashable.com/
• Sign up to the e-consultancy newsletter (think requires becoming a basic/free member) and read stuff like Inexpensive tips to improve usability
• Some cute Flash games: http://www.ferryhalim.com/orisinal/
• Review award-winning digital work like BIMAs awards (I stole one, once).
• Get a copy of Revolution mag; read their site http://www.revolutionmagazine.com/; follow them on Twitter http://twitter.com/andrewmccormick
• http://www.ted.com/
• Wider picture at Economist Technology Quarterly: http://www.economist.com/science/tq/ e.g. this on off/online gaming
• Same for Guardian’s relevant bit each week: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/digital-media

But bigger than all that is: stop reading, start doing. It’s called interactive for a reason. Start a blog, start tweeting (and follow me), make yourself a 1-page website, share your shots on Flickr, buy an iPhone, explore the Facebook features you’ve always ignored, start a conversation on a YouTube channel, ask a question to your network on LinkedIn, edit an article on Wikipedia – any article!, choose a meetup.com group and turn up one night, create a Google maps mashup of past pet’s resting places, charge $1 a pixel for your homepage, start a new social movement. Get involved! That’s learning.

Blair and humanism

2009-02-09T16:52:00.004Z

Blair speaking at the US National Prayer Breakfast in Washington DC:

"Neither do I decry the work of humanists, who give gladly of themselves for others and who can often shame the avowedly religious. Those who do God's work are God's people.

I only say that there are limits to humanism and beyond those limits God and only God can work. The phrase "fear of God" conjures up the vengeful God of parts of the Old Testament. But "fear of God" means really obedience to God; humility before God; acceptance through God that there is something bigger, better and more important than you. It is that humbling of man's vanity, that stirring of conscience through God's prompting, that recognition of our limitations, that faith alone can bestow.

We can perform acts of mercy, but only God can lend them dignity. We can forgive, but only God forgives completely in the full knowledge of our sin. And only through God comes grace; and it is God's grace that is unique."

In recognising the positive contribution of humanists, Blair is ahead of the curve (along with Obama).

Humanism is limited, agree: indeed that lends it the 'humility' he later claims it is missing.

You do not need God to understand there is something bigger. The Universe is amazing, utterly huge, sublime. I'm nothing within it. Faith is not alone in bestowing such an understanding: most episodes of Dr. Who do a decent job.

It's exactly this kind of deference to a supernatural being that, were I visiting in a flying saucer from another planet, would make me hit 'reverse' and come back in another 1000 years to see if this fair race has understood anything yet. On this evidence we have but the faintest grasp on knowledge.

Nurse suspended for prayer

2009-02-02T12:59:00.000Z

Politics in Gaza

2009-01-24T15:02:00.003Z

"Geoffrey Dennis, chief executive of the global humanitarian group Care International, said it was not a time for politics.

"Fifty per cent of the population in Gaza are under the age of 18; they're not interested in the politics in this, they want to go to school and play football like my son. "

- BBC News

Politics is somehow optional is it? Who are these people that think you can brush aside all the complexities of an issue by avoiding 'the politics' (so that you agree with their position). They work for an international NGO. Shocking naivety.

The answer is more and better politics, not trying to wish the politics out of existence.

What piece of work is a man!

2009-01-21T13:27:00.001Z

What piece of work is a man! how noble in reason!
how infinite in faculty! in form and moving how
express and admirable! in action how like an angel!
in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the
world! the paragon of animals! And yet, to me,
what is this quintessence of dust? man delights not
me: no, nor woman neither, though by your smiling
you seem to say so.

Full speech

MPs should publish their full expenses

2009-01-20T13:28:00.003Z

Dear Frank Dobson,

I am writing to urge you to vote against the draft Freedom of Information (Parliament) Order 2009 this Thursday. Additionally, please sign Jo Swinson’s Early Day Motion number 492.

I want Parliament to be more open, not less: this motion is in the wrong direction. I note that addresses of MPs will not be published (SI 2008/1967).

Public servants must account for their expenses: all of them. I work in the private sector and have to provide a receipt whether its 50p or £50. That information is made available to the person paying for it. The same principle applies; I strongly feel that this 'balance' being introduced (or rather not prevented from being introduced) into our democracy will lead to greater responsibility with taxpayers' money.

I don't doubt your personal integrity on this matter Mr. Dobson, but there are clear signs that others in that chamber make questionable decisions on spending. That information should be available so the public can judge it for themselves.

I will be tracking your and other MPs votes via TheyWorkForYou and will perceive a vote for this motion or an abstention as a vote against transparency, which will contribute to my voting decision at the next election.

Yours sincerely,

Pharkie

Location in London, from space

2009-01-20T10:03:00.001Z

Obamania gets serious

2009-01-20T09:44:00.005Z

More pics and updates on the inauguration today

It's finally happening. Eight years to the day of George W. Bush - finally coming to an end.

Maybe now the human race can get back on track?

A letter to David Miliband MP

2009-01-16T10:39:00.002Z

Rt. Hon David Miliband MP - Foreign Secretary
Foreign and Commonwealth Office
King Charles Street
London SW1A 2AH

Dear Foreign Secretary

Re: This ship and Gaza

I urge immediate action to stop arms shipments en route to the Israeli port of Ashdod near Gaza and agree a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel, Hamas and Palestinian armed groups to help ensure that weapons will not be used to commit serious violations of international humanitarian law.

I learn that a German-owned container ship the Wehr Elbe, is currently transporting some 989 CONTAINERS of US munitions en route to Israel. It was heading to the Israeli port of Ashdod near Gaza but at the time of writing its status is unclear. The weapons are still on the ship and they must not be allowed to be unloaded for use in the deadly conflict in Gaza.

This vast consignment of weapons could be delivered at any time in the next few days. A further consignment of an additional 325 containers of weapons, likely to include White Phosphorous, was due to be shipped from Askatos in Greece to Israel. This ship was last spotted off the port of Askatos on 12th January 2009. I urge to you take all possible diplomatic measures to stop these and pending and future shipments to any of the parties to this current conflict .

I am also concerned about recent reports that UK arms components may be used in military equipment used by the Israeli armed forces. Specifically, it would appear that a UK company may have provided engines for Israeli Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAVs). Such pilot-less drone Aircraft have been widely used by Israeli forces to help target bombs, aircraft and helicopter attacks in Lebanon and Gaza. It is vital that the UK does not license components that could be used in the current conflict

I encourage your personal support for the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT). The need for such a treaty remains pressing and urgent. As a champion of the ATT, it is vital that the UK’s own arms export controls are sufficiently tough and that all necessary action is taken to prevent arms fueling the current crisis in Gaza.

Yours in hope,

Pharkie

» Now write your own

Free Hugs for London

2009-01-08T12:25:00.004Z

Pharkie and friends giving out Free Hugs in London!

Inspired by Julian Mann: http://www.freehugscampaign.org/

Read more on the Free Hugs Campaign: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Hugs_Campaign

Atheist bus launches!

2009-01-07T10:17:00.004Z

"You wait ages for an atheist bus, then 800 come along at once" - comedy writer Ariane Sherine, behind the campaign.

£135000, 800 UK buses, 1000 tube ads and 2 animated signs.

woo!

Watch the BBC video

Full details are here:

http://www.atheistbus.org.uk/

http://richarddawkins.net/article,3494,Atheists-launch-bus-ad-campaign,BBC

Some Humanist thoughts..

2009-01-05T12:48:00.001Z

..kindly provided by GALHA (can't easily reference source):

"Nietzsche urged us to “remain true to the Earth, and believe not those who advise a hope above the world.” In this worldliness lies the key to secular spirituality. The sacred and the spiritual are to be found in the virtues, values, and creative capacities within each and every one of us, right here on Earth.

For too long, we have accepted a false dichotomy between that which is mundane, earthly, and human, and that which is high, heavenly, and divine. The sacred has always been exiled to another world or dimension. But we exist here and now, in a specific space and time, and not in some eternal, otherworldly, Platonic realm. As philosopher Benedetto Croce put it, “Eternity is in the moment for those who know how to place it there.”

Properly understood, then, the spiritual is that which pertains to our human capacities for understanding, self-awareness, free will, and moral responsibility. And the sense of the sacred comes from realizing our own potential and striving for the best within us."

Dear Lord Attlee

2009-01-03T19:50:00.000Z

"Dear Lord Attlee,

I note you recently mentioned the 'theyworkforyou.com' website during a
speech in the Lords. You wanted to test whether people are watching -
and seemed disappointed at the lack of direct response to previous
publication of your details.

I just wanted praise your knowledge of the mySociety services such as
theyworkforyou.com - and confirm that real people do use them and watch
what's going on!

While I'm here, may I request you continue to block ID cards, reassess
your attitude toward the hunting ban but continue to support laws aimed
at preventing climate change. The main thing of course is to vote toward
equal gay rights when the matter comes up, which you've neglected to do
so far. Perhaps it's because you're a Conservative:
no-one's perfect.

Yours sincerely,

Pharkie"

Earl Attlee replied:

"Yes but at least we supported most of the Civil Partnerships Act!"

The Windows XP of brains

2008-12-23T11:01:00.002Z

I find interesting our ability to predict people using empathy. It's not so useful with inanimate objects. With animate ones, if you put yourself in their head you can tell what they're going to with a fair degree of success. You stop reacting to their actions and start preventing their intended actions. Like being CovOps in Enemy Territory.

The most remarkable thing about this is that humans operate on a regular rhythm. We're unable to perform actions outside of this rhythm, based on the heartbeat. The most obvious example is how you can't walk out of rhythm when a car goes by with blaring music.

This is also why it's impossible to catch a chipmunk. Their hearts beat maybe 6 times faster than ours. As such they can make 6 decisions, perform 6 actions and move in 6 different directions in the time it takes our 'sophisticated' brain to react to the first.

We are the Windows XP of brains: feature-heavy, more advanced than before, but a bit slow, clunky, with many bits we don't need or use.

GALHA Xmas Special

2008-12-22T12:25:00.000Z

Not the Lion King

2008-11-25T11:40:00.005Z

"Started 30 minutes late then read a crap story from his book" - the verdict of one punter last night on the talk by Malcolm Gladwell. Starting his session with a description of how he cons people into attendance by inserting historical thinkers into the event description perhaps didn't bode well.

Over 2,500 people paid £35 each for an hour of his wisdom last night at the Lyceum Theatre: so his techniques are working! Problem was they all turned up at the same time to collect their tickets. The staff, presumably more accustomed to coaches of bluerinse ladies from the Midlands obediently queuing for the matinee of The Lion King, seemed slightly stressed by the influx of all these Londoners seeking intellectual enlightenment, fast.

In the end it wasn't so enlightening but at least moderately entertaining. Gladwell explained how 'mitigation' - his lingo for failure to be direct and clear due to power relations within a team - causes all sorts of problems, particularly air crashes. He emphasised that in technical fields such as running a nuclear power station, it is often not technical but social problems that create disasters.

He added that it's usually not one catastrophic failure, but a sequence of unlikely, unrelated coincidences that add up to a showstopper: the 'average' air disaster has 7 such factors. This is certainly true, making it difficult to either assign responsibilities or create a technical process (such as a check-list) to prevent it happening again.

At one point Gladwell seemed to be advocating a new racism. It was caveated, but worrying to hear the logic that cultural differences are real and predictable so systems should take them into account. This with the explanation oft provided by those with unshakeable faith in the hard sciences, that it's not the speaker or their opinion, it's the undeniable 'facts': they must acknowledge the objective 'reality' that different races (though he used the world 'culture') have different aptitudes, predilections and capabilities. That's the kind of logic an insurance company could use to price higher premiums for black people: not the sort of thing I'd risk going anywhere near. I thought it careless, a bit over-excited saying something controversial without thinking it through.

Some lovely anecdotes, but it was light on real information: I'll have to assume that's in the book. You got the impression he was having a great time wandering around the world talking to interesting people, writing populist books then giving 'profound' talks to paying audiences - but that makes him a modern-day campfire storyteller, not a leading light of progress. Substantial insight, analysis and thoroughness of approach wasn't in evidence. Overall: not a bad way to spend an hour of my time, but I reckon there are better thinkers out there.

Watch Malcolm in action at TED

Do YOU want to replace the existing "Normal"?

2008-08-04T23:36:00.002+01:00

Microsoft, if only you knew..

Life, but not as we know it

2008-06-07T23:09:00.002+01:00

My colleague from GALHA on News24 recently debating the Embryology bill against The Religious:

Watch on YouTube.

Pharkie: now available in Pescetarian

2008-06-07T21:53:00.004+01:00

I've gone veggie. Or more accurately, Pescetarian. There, I've said it. Meat no more.

Why? I could no longer hold back the tide of the unstoppable logic that killing animals for food is wrong. As Aristotle predicted, now I have that knowledge, I can only act one way. It's not being worthy, it's being rational.

Why still fish? Because they're an essential source of rare nutrients in a way that meat isn't. If I had the money and time, I'd give them up too: but I don't, so I won't. And I'm not going to feel guilty about it. Hello? Yo Sushi delivery?

Why still plants? Jainism conceptualises 6 levels of sentience, with water being a '1' and humans being a '6'. Plants are around a '2' I reckon. Chickens and pigs maybe 4 or 5. My argument is around cost/benefit analysis. Does eating X gain me more than the suffering it costs the thing being eaten? With plants, fruits and nuts, the answer is 'yes'.

This shows itself in the violence involved. Killing a pig is a pretty messy affair: I'm sure you've seen the documentaries. Grinding some mint into my mojito is relatively devoid of violence (though you should see me make a mojito).

Robert Winston will tell you humans needed to start eating meat to develop their enormous brains. Time to evolve!

I think I've always been vege/pescetarian. My mother will tell you the story: around 6 I thought it perfectly nice of the lambs bouncing around the field to be generous enough to hand over some lamb for us to eat. She didn't have the heart to tell me they gave a lot more than I anticipated. My logic then was clearer than it's been for twenty years, despite me supposedly becoming an adult inbetween.

So it's taken me this long to develop some integrity and stop the hypocrisy of claiming to be a decent human being while thoughtlessly purchasing the murder of other sentient beings. The market does more than that: it brings these animals into the world for the very purpose of creating their death. I find that distasteful - literally.

I'm not going to campaign for it, I'm not going to hassle my friends: it's a personal decision. Be the change you want to see in the world and all that.

I'm not saying I will never eat another piece of meat in my life: if I was on a desert island and there was no other food available, I'd do it (I might even enjoy it). But I'm not: I'm surrounded by Tesco. Actually, maybe I should try 'Fresh and Wild'.

A final dig (never one to miss an opportunity) at those religions that don't explicitly support vegetarianism, notably Islam, Judaism and Christianity. Given the obviousness of the problem with eating meat, I simply have no idea how they present themselves as the leading lights of ethics.

Any regrets? Sunday lamb? Bacon sandwiches? The thought is always better than the reality, isn't it?

No: I'm quite looking forward to it. I'm now driven to try new foods, new combinations, new restaurants. This is the start of an interesting adventure. Never mind the mooted health benefits: I feel more alive already.

I'll let you know how I get on..

Eh P R?

2008-05-24T11:04:00.002+01:00

Up until at least July last year, Zopa offered a £1,000 loan over 12 months at less than 7% APR.

Last month, a 12 month loan of £1,000 would cost between 15 and 20% APR. They rank your credit risk A - C: that rate's for an 'A*' grade customer.

This morning the minimum term has become 36 months (the only other choice now being 60 months, whereas before it was more flexible).

Credit card companies are now automatically reducing credit limits; before they used to automatically increase them.

It's the economy, stupid.

Overegging overdrafts

2008-04-24T20:57:00.005+01:00

Last month I went into the red on my bank account: silly me. I was £11 overdrawn for 3 days. My bank kindly included a letter with my monthly statement (they couldn't afford a separate letter - or to call me) informing me of a £28 charge being applied to the account.

Not great, but fair enough: they fine me for breaking the rules. They don't make much money out of me other ways, so I let them have this from time to time to stop them getting any ideas about charging me for a bank account (like First Direct do).

Anyway: the next month I received another letter with my monthly statement. Apparently they intended to take another £28. Why? Because the 3 days I was overdrawn happened to span two (arbitrary and unknown to me) statement periods. To their mind, I'd been overdrawn in two reporting periods, so 2 x £28.

I spotted this, called them and was happily told my Customer Service Representative would 'discuss it with the branch manager': it remains to be seen if the second charge applies.

So I'm happy to read today that 'Banks lose overdraft charges case'. Why? Not because I think £28 as a fine is too large for the crime (which I do). Not because I despise the money-grabbing, immoral capitalists that are bankers (which I do). I'll tell you why:

The banks rewrote their terms and conditions about a year ago when all this hoohaa over charges was bubbling to the surface. They brought in some kickass lawyers. Previously, the £28 was straightforwardly a charge for going overdrawn - and therefore subject to regulation over what can be charged. They now claim when you attempt a transaction that will put you overdrawn you are requesting an overdraft, a service from the bank. The bank charges you £28 for considering this request for a service. It's not a fine: certainly not! It's a service - and thus not subject to regulation: voila.

I wouldn't often make financial service requests after 5 pints at 4.30am via the keypad of some underground tavern; my bank apparently disagrees.

Let's hope the courts introduce a little common sense back into the equation.

It'll never work, that communism capitalism

2008-04-22T21:20:00.008+01:00

The state has already bailed out the greedy banks, to the tune of £50 billion (with the possibility of £100 billion). It's now announced that the state is bailing out homeowners.

I don't own a house: I rent. I'd stayed out of the house market for a reason. I'm not smug about it, but I saw this coming. I spent many evenings, about 3 years ago, sat in Excel: the increase in property prices vs earning was clearly unsustainable. The best we could hope for was a soft landing - and indeed we've had one so far. But I steered clear altogether.

So.. do I get to enjoy the winnings on my bet? Do I get to benefit from my prudence and foresight?

No: I get to subsidise (via my taxes) all those that jumped in with both feet and are now feeling the heat. The state is actively engaged in removing my opportunity to benefit; to e.g. snap up a property that would be repossessed. That's what the 'market' would have happen. It's what I thought I had a right to expect to happen.

But Alastair Darling has intervened in the market, created an imbalance: chosen homeowners over me. Chosen to protect the foolhardy, the overindulgent; the ones that bought into the capitalist, credit-driven boom without a thought to their own future. To save people from their own bad decisions. At my expense! And a double whammy at that: I can't get a bargain house, saving money, because I'm subsidising those in the houses via my taxes, costing me money.

Thanks very much, Gordon Brown!

Beyond the personal, one must ask: where's the free market now? Why isn't it being left to self-destruct? Why are its problems being solved by the state, thus it given oxygen as 'something that works'? This model that our whole society is based around..

Because the government believes in, indeed the global consensus is that: Capitalism Works.

Despite all this evidence to the contrary: the system collapsing around our ears, the inability of it to protect itself, the headlines every day: Capitalism Works.

Does it? If so, why is the state having to intervene massively to keep it working?

I hope this clear and distinct failure of Capitalism to prevent or resolve its own issues isn't lost on people. Though I wish I could name someone out there making this point to them.

They tell me Communism will never work. Capitalism ain't doin a great job either.

Credit Crunchie

2008-03-12T11:48:00.004Z

The MD of Egg has had to step down after 'presiding over a PR disaster'. That's right, since she didn't engage a decent strategy to handle the obvious backlash from withdrawing credit cards from 160,000 customers.

But the nature of the backlash deserves a critical eye. Egg stands accused of dropping customers that were perfectly responsible with their accounts. They feel hard done by - but they acknowledge they may have been unprofitable for the company. Credit cards aren't provided by the state, no-one has a right to them. In the end, fewer credit cards around is a good thing: so what's the problem?

Maybe it would have come across better, PR-wise, if Egg had gone with this honesty, rather than telling us it was something about helping people avoid bad debt. But "if this is a case of them ditching long-standing credit worthy customers because they make no money out of them ... perhaps this is an issue that requires an Office of Fair Trading investigation." (This is money)- why is it?? Egg is entitled to remove accounts from people that aren't making it money, isn't it?

But I wonder: is this more about the peculiar Western Capitalist tradition of self-esteem and position in society being understood by the credit card(s) one owns? Such that those whose accounts have been withdrawn see it as a negative assessment of their character. They've had to phone the agencies to console themselves their credit 'rating' is 'excellent', as if desperately seeking some kind of parental approval. If true, I find it both ridiculous and sad. Sad for the individuals who might want something more substantial in their lives by which to value themselves (good deeds? family?) and sad for society if it engenders such economically-biased judgment of human worth.

For me, the idea that a credit card conveys some kind of status and standing largely disappeared a few years ago. When a mailer drops through the door that says 'You've been carefully selected for us to offer you credit! Need a new hat? Think of all the nice things you can buy with our credit. We're offering you our extra premium Platinum credit card: apply now!'

..I substitute, in my head, 'debt' where it says 'credit' - and somehow the appeal disappears.

A vested interest here: I'm an Egg customer of several years standing. So far, my card seems safe!

Microsoft Project 2007 vs Merlin 2.5

2008-02-11T16:10:00.000Z

In my day-job as Project Manager at a London Digital Marketing agency, I turn around a great number of project schedules. A solid tool to create these is indispensable to my armoury.

I tried out MS Project 2007 (for PC) over the weekend - and for the first time realised how far Merlin 2 (for Mac) is ahead of it. Who'd have thought? It seems to me that Project Wizards with Merlin are leaders, when I had assumed they were followers.

I identified several things in MS Project that are poor compared to Merlin:

You don't seem to able to zoom in to days or zoom out to weeks/months easily (or even at all) in MS Project. This 'scaling' is something I use all the time in Merlin.
In MS Project: no library of commonly used project elements, or templates or ready-made schedules to get you started, that I saw. (the MS Project 'Project Guide' says it's helpful and intuitive: it isn't).
The presentation of the GANTT chart in MS Project, even in '2007' remains awful. No drop-shadows, no anti-aliasing, no soft edges. This isn't a fluffy or subjective point: I like my project documentation to have substance and style.
The way MS Project shows 'completion' is not as intuitive as Merlin. Thin lines inside a bar vs shading the whole bar.
No task names on the bars within the chart part: being able to print just that, without the task list, is again useful day to day.
Whereas Merlin has an application-specific, well thought-out Print dialog, MS Project uses a system-wide one, with the Preview needing a whole different screen/window and none of the helpful options Merlin provides to quickly print just what you want.
Merlin's helpfile is remarkable in that, instead of the usual 'Pressing the 'OK' button will accept the settings', you get a thoughtful and well taught mini-course in Project Management principles, each part mapped to the application.
Merlin is Microsoft Project compatible (and I've relied on this in a Production environment) - but MS Project doesn't run on a Mac.
Merlin costs less than MS Project (in most licensing situations)

In summary I could see a number of serious drawbacks but very few reasons to prefer MS Project. OK, perhaps it's server-based components/team collaboration tools and integration with other MS/PC products - and even those are mostly available with Merlin 2.5.

Merlin is less a 'challenger brand' and now a better, more comprehensive tool that too few people have yet discovered.

Feed the world?

2008-01-31T11:43:00.000Z

A quick comment on this:
Guardian article on World Population

Monbiot can be an annoying so and so sometimes. Quoting a figure of '134 trillion' as a figure of what the population may reach then saying 'oh ignore that figure' is irresponsible at best and misleading at worst. The world population will stabilise at 10 billion.

His key concern that the rich will be the problem contradicts a well-known pattern: developing countries have less kids. The more developed the country, the less its fertility rate. The problem corrects itself. Why are we worried about the expansion of China and India? Because they are developing countries, while we are not. They will get bigger, we will get smaller.

"Surely there is one respect in which the growing human population constitutes the primary threat? The amount of food the world eats bears a direct relationship to the number of mouths. After years of glut, the storerooms are suddenly empty and grain prices are rocketing. How will another 3 billion be fed?"

The short answer is GM crops. Ah but we can't have them because of the environmental problems, can we? I find it intellectually frustrating to have both the problem and the lack of solution created by the same restricted mindset. George makes not a single mention that technology might solve this seemingly interminable problem.

I agree with his basic point that the poor, the masses, are not the source of the problem. But the idea this is a problem no-one's been talking about or that his analysis is the only true voice out there seems naive.

Economics for Dummies

2007-11-04T18:18:00.000Z

You set out to buy a TV and discover that for the £100 TV you have your eye on, you can save £10 by driving half an hour across town. You do so because you save 10%. That's obviously a bedroom TV so you also look for a main-room TV, this time for £2000. You discover that this TV is also on sale across town - for £1990. But you decide your time is worth more than that 0.5% saving, so you don't go.
According to my book on Economics you are being irrational. Your time is either worth £10 or it isn't.

I can see the point of view, but I'd wager that most people would act in line with the above. I wouldn't call this irrational: it's rational so long as you understand what people are deciding upon. And that is happiness, a psychological measure that standard Economic theory isn't altogether good at. People are happier when they think they're getting a great deal. They will spend 10 minutes on online price comparisons to save 50p on a DVD, but won't walk 100 extra yards to a shop that's 50p cheaper for orange juice, even if that only takes 2 minutes.

The discipline's de facto get-out-clause is that, however distasteful its proposed rules, if it accurately predicts the real-world, its a good theory. So there's surely a problem for it here. People don't think of money in the strict mathematical sense that Economics would like them to.

Its time for more subtlety in modern economic theory - and a change perhaps in some of its fundamental ground-rules. This is one of the thoughts of Richard Layard, Professor Emeritus at LSE. He's at a St Paul's Institute Event on Tuesday and I'll be there to report back.

What is Social Science?

2007-11-04T18:01:00.000Z

Is Social Science a science? That question has been sat in my head for many years now. Its claim lies with use of qualitative and quantitative analysis. In broader terms, it seeks an objective body of knowledge that can be taught systematically. It is a soft science. Yet the more I study it, the more I understand that good vs bad social science is not just a matter of opinion, the mood of a University tutor on the day they mark an assignment. Good social science is well-structured, comprehensive and measurable. It builds on only the best, peer-reviewed theories that have gone before, leaving eccentric ideas that don't map to reality by the wayside. That and its brave attempt to illuminate our world provide it much in common with hard science.

A related question is what disciplines Social Sciences includes. Is Economics a Social Science? The London School of Economics seems to think so, being self-titled the UK's leading school of Social Science. What about History? hmm surely it helps in understanding today's society to be aware of patterns evident from the past? Philosophy? I'd vote that in too. Which makes it all the sadder that typical 3-year degree courses, Social Sciences in name, neglect to grasp not just topics but whole genres such as these, relegating them to 'Humanities' - which isn't the same at all.

Can we, together, lift one village out of the Middle Ages?

2007-10-21T14:28:00.000+01:00

The Guardian is determined to turn around a single village in Africa, taking it from 'the 14th century into the 21st', over the course of 3 years: http://www.guardian.co.uk/katine

Having finished the exam for my OU Course on International Development, 'Challenges for a world in transition' on Tuesday it's reassuring to see how the tools and concepts learnt over the past 9 months can so easily be applied to this project. e.g. there's a section in there on the fact the villagers tend not to boil their drinking water. The people there were 'displaced by war 4 years ago'. The word 'sustainable' is just 3 minutes in to the introductory video, 'so that it doesn't end in 3 years when we move on'.

There's lots of chatter about people-centred development, as the Guardian editor says in the intro video, "We realise that throwing money at the problem isn't going to work. There is another idea of development that is from the ground-up, more sustainable. That's what we're trying to do here". As I learnt though, this seems empty of an idea how, even if they succeed with this village, it might make a broader difference, bar a vague notion that 'it might serve as a model'.

The language used to promote the launch is notably paternal. The writers ask themselves 'why bother?', rather than 'why interfere?'. The village is 'trapped in the 14th century': essentially a value judgment that their lifestyle is wrong.

The project is clearly in the 'development as done by development agencies' realm, with the associated question of legitimacy. You wonder if the project will prioritise what works best for the paper, best for their coverage, by extension best for the values of their lefty audience (in which I include myself) - than best for the people and culture they are operating within.

Being the Guardian, they're at least honest that ideas over development are contested and thus the project is controversial. They make this clear on the front page, no less, of Saturday's paper. They acknowledge that upon asking what one villager wants to make her life better, she doesn't say 'a Sony Vega 42" plasma and a subscription to Sky Sports': she says 'more time to sit with my friends'. They explain that the media needs to invent ways to keep the topic fresh, since otherwise it's such a slow-burning issue.

So I have mixed feelings over this project, but wanted to bring it to the attention of those of you who like me, following my recent course, are interested in the complex issues involved.

10 years on

2007-05-14T21:35:00.000+01:00

Everyone else is busy summing up the last 10 years of Blair. Let's have a go.

Labour's achievements over the past 10 years are extraordinary: Northern Ireland, a national minimum wage, a nationwide ban on smoking indoors, devolved power to Mayors and Scotland/Wales/NI, gay equality and civil parsnips, the EU convention on Human Rights, Bank of England independence with consistent economic stability / growth, record investment in public services, some reform of the House of Lords..

The buts are Iraq, constant attacks on and weakening of civil liberties, a poor record on climate change, countless bungled IT projects, decreased social mobility, the increase in faith schools and other undesirable mixing of religion and state, the allegations of cash-for-honours and the dropping of that Saudi investigation..

Expansive lists for both 'good' and 'bad'. But then a lot changes in 10 years: the domain 'google.com' wasn't registered until 10 years this September.

More than all the details: Labour has shifted the political centre of gravity such that never again can the Tories (or anybody else) be the repressive, pessimistic, nationalistic force for evil they once were. Blair was the first post-war Prime Minister not seeming to long for a mythical 1950s sobriety and propriety. He embraced the 21st century, a product of our times. They say his achievements can be summed up in one word: Cameron.

I grew up under this government, a Labour government, a progressive government - I fear it will shape my expectations and imagination for years to come.

As Thatcher before him, Blair is the best statesman of his generation and, unusually, was empowered to reach some of that potential. I won't miss the spin, the doomed international ventures and the unanswered questions but I'll admit it: I'll miss him.

Nazi style

2007-05-07T20:56:00.000+01:00

The kind of reaction to anything positive, no matter how carefully caveated, about the Nazis annoys me..

Bryan Ferry apologizes for Nazi comments

Why is it not allowed to admire Nazi iconography, uniforms and speeches - call it their brand if you will - while fully understanding the intense evilness of their endeavour and hating the fact they existed?

There's no contradiction here. From Prince Harry to the GQ Editor mentioned there, I wish people were given the benefit of the doubt and not pounced on by Press/NGO wolves at the slightest wrong move.

If we're not able to talk about it, admire some bits and despise others, how are we to learn about it? Censoring the discussion does nobody any favours.

Sidney and Beatrice Webb

2007-05-07T18:37:00.000+01:00

London and political history connections:

In the 19th century, one 'Sidney Webb' was educated at Birkbeck College.
Birkbeck's motto is 'In nocte consilium', Study by Night.
Sidney and his wife Beatrice set up the Fabian Society in 1884.
In 1895, they created the London School of Economics (via a donation to the Fabian society).
Not content with founding two great intellectual institutions that continue to this day.. in 1913 they started the magazine the New Statesman.
They were closely involved with the Co-operative movement.
Famous co-ops: Lurpak butter, Best Western hotels, Brittany Ferries, Ocean Spray cranberry juice.

Pretty impressive CV if you ask me.

Webcameron coverage of the MMC rally

2007-05-01T20:44:00.000+01:00

http://www.webcameron.org.uk/blogs/3698

It really is a horribly cringe-making speech at our rally..

"There must be a way of treating people as if they're humans, not making them apply via a computer" .
I really think the biggest employer in Europe could do with a (decent) computerised job-application system. He alludes to the idea that we'll go back to warm and fuzzy reputation/tradition-based recruiting, but he knows they need a computer system to do it. He doesn't deal with that head-on, he trots out a glib 'HUMANS NOT COMPUTERS' line.

"Spending not on political priorities ahead of clinical priorities"
Pretty much any decision in the NHS, given it involves allocating taxpayers money, is political. Is he advocating lower accountability to voters?

"Spending money on computers rather than patient care."
I mean you can't lose with that one can you? 'I HAVE A PATIENT DYING OVER HERE!' 'Why don't you buy an iPod?' 'BUT HE'S DYING!' 'It plays movies too!'

But what about when you can't access the right records, when paper-based admin takes 4 x longer than its electronic equvalent? IT reform is urgently needed in the NHS and failing to acknowledge that reality to make a fluffy/telling you what you want to hear statement is cowardice.

"After 10 years of Labour .. we're having hospital closures"
Yes, but to specialise departments so that they serve people better. The era of the 'general hospital' is over and the very professionals Cameron is claiming to listen to are saying that too. Spending on the NHS itself is at record-levels and the Conservatives will never support that.

Up your MTAS

2007-04-15T02:07:00.000+01:00

MTAS March in ..March!

What has Europe ever done for us?

2007-03-24T20:37:00.000Z

Wasted billions of money. Legislated straight bananas. Opened UK borders to a flood of immigrants.

Newsnight yesterday went 'For' (Mark Littlewood) and 'Against' (Marc Glendening) on the EU. The dialogue lacked intellectual depth and seemed weighed down by polarised dogma. Neither man has a firm grip on what the EU is, has been or may become. I'll forgive them since they had only minutes to cover 50 years of history, but let me pick up some points in the limitless time that follows.

Mark Littlewood accepted his opponent's point that the EU is headed toward a federal superstate, with the difference that he approved. The terms are a trap. The EU is a new concept, a supranational authority unique in the world, neither a state nor a federation. To support the EU is not to compromise nation-states: it can and often is a 1+1 = 3 equation.

Look at Iceland or Switzerland, Glendening says. Points missed by his opponent include 1) not joining the EU is distinctly different to being in it for over 30 years and then leaving - and 2) those countries are not the UK . As for going back to the EFTA, economic integration without political integration doesn't work. UK trade would become subject to rules it no longer has say in, as Norway's is to its detriment. This has little to do that I can see with an 'empty chair' as Littlewood suggested: that was an unrelated situation where France paralysed the political operation of the EU by refusing to participate.

The poll 'Should more power be given to Europe' implies the UK can give power away to the EU. The EU's powers are mostly those that only the EU can possess. Power isn't mutually exclusive, the EU generates it where it did not previously exist. The UK arguably has a net gain of power due to its influence within that collective.

The idea that the EU is 'stuck in 1957' I find bizarre: it's the most forward-looking organisation on this Earth. It is a new model of political and social organisation, just finding its feet after these 50 short years. If it works, it may serve as a model to reduce conflict and increase prosperity throughout the world. Nation-states are losing their grip in a globalising world and the EU points to a viable political solution.

The most clearly erroneous comment from Glendening was 'Europe has had nothing to do with peace', claiming it is instead because fascism was defeated. Others point to NATO or Mutually Assured Destruction as the real benefactor. These ideas are short-sighted; fascism remains ever ready to return; America (NATO) is liable to unwitting expeditions we'd be better off without - and if the continuing proliferation of nuclear weapons is our best chance for lasting peace, we're in deep trouble!

To recommend that nation-states continue unmediated is to approve the only tool they possess to resolve disagreement: war. The UN (a political-only organisation) is powerless to prevent it, as we have seen. The EU makes war impossible primarily by economic, not political means. It can take credit, not alone but still in fair measure, for the peace and prosperity of the last 50 years.

The setup of the Newsnight debate reflected a simplistic view of the EU that the figureheads did little to modify: that one either wants to God Save the Queen and keep a sovereign state or give up all our national power to Europe. The former is untenable and the latter impossible. The sovereign state will continue to exist as the primary political organisation while the EU pursues necessary things that deserve respect: free trade and movement, political conflict resolution, the exporting of democracy, action against climate change, cross-border police co-operation, protection of human rights and the proper stewardship of international collective goods such as fish, air and energy.

I would hope for a more enlightened approach next time with the substance considered with more care. Nevertheless, I give great credit for covering the topic and wish only to see more of it.

Further information:

My comments on 'Talk about Newsnight' before the programme aired.
The pro-EU site 'What has Europe ever done for us?'
The Euromyths site that aims to correct Euroskeptic propaganda.

Good morning everyone!

2007-01-14T16:55:00.000Z

"The world shall soon dissolve like snow,
The sun refuse to shine;
But God, who called me here below,
Shall be forever mine."

A mantra for a Muslim suicide bomber about to set off on his deadly mission?

No: this is a verse from 'Amazing Grace'. It is typical of hymns, sung every morning in schools across the country. They are, almost without exception, filled with violent imagery, tales of death and destruction, struggle and victory over ones' enemies.

By law, every school is required to perform an act of 'Collective worship' every morning, for every pupil (except those specifically excluded). Not just faith schools, as people might assume: all schools. And not an act of moral teaching, of citizenship or cultural knowledge - but of worship. That perhaps the majority interpret the law as the former rather than the latter doesn't help. It's a license for the Church to get involved, a demand for the supernatural, the religious, the irrational. Every morning, for every child, in the social institution we trust to transfer real knowledge.

Full lyrics to Amazing Grace.

Where's my third of a Mars bar?

2007-01-04T01:43:00.000Z

"Migrationwatch, which campaigns against mass immigration, said the gain to the native population would allow each person to buy just a third of a Mars bar a month."

I want my not-even-half-a-Mars bar! I must write to the Home Office to inform them of my address for delivery forthwith!?

Or is this one of the UK's most fervent anti-immigration groups admitting that immigrants make a net contribution to our economy, quite aside from the other benefits they bring?

Whoever thought of the Mars bar comparison is a genius. Beats the old 'buses' or 'football pitches' analogies any day. I recommend that from this day forward our GDP be measured in Mars bar-potential!

'4p a week' benefits of immigration

Internet censorship

2006-12-10T18:03:00.000Z

Dear Frank Dobson,

It is common knowledge that China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea operate Internet censorship. Should we add United Kingdom to the list? Since 2004, Britain has quietly - very quietly - been incorporating a layer of comprehensive web censorship into its technical infrastructure,

"The decision by Britain's largest high-speed internet provider will lead to the first mass censorship of the web attempted in a Western democracy." - The Observer, Sunday June 6, 2004

Led by BT (the largest Internet-access/service provider, or 'ISP') with the full support of the Labour Government, the 'Cleanfeed' system can accurately ban a website, a web page, even a specific image which it - at the sole discretion of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) - deems illegal. The government is enthusiastic to expand the system to every ISP:

"the biggest ISPs (who between them provide over 90% of domestic broadband connections) are either currently blocking or have plans to by the end of 2006" - the IWF (http://www.iwf.org.uk/government/page.156.381.htm)

I don't wish illegal websites to be available: but we are fast moving towards a comprehensive system capable of banning from UK citizens, with fine-granularity, any content arbitrarily deemed inappropriate. While I applaud any move toward protecting children online, the current process is undemocratic.

BT, nor any ISP association, the IWF nor the government publish formal information on the Cleanfeed system itself, how it operates, within what constraints or to whom it is accountable. The list of banned sites is kept strictly secret. There is no independent check on the statistics generated by BT that claim to show the scale of the problem and effectiveness opposing it. ISPs that implement Cleanfeed are under no obligation to inform their users - and most do not. There appears a serious lack of democratic checks and balances.

I met Sir Christopher Meyer recently. He voiced an impassioned defense of the self-regulation that the PCC provides for the Press. In the PCC, judgments are made by a Commission, who are required to be independent and register their interests. The IWF, by contrast, assures us that:

"Our Internet Content Analysts who make up our 'hotline' team undergo comprehensive police and in-house training on all aspects of assessing and tracing internet content." (http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.31.htm)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

In the case of an appeal (detail below), apparently the 'management of the IWF' decides. The final port of call for a resolution is the Police. Not a judge: the Police. I hope the phrase 'Separation of Powers' might set alarm bells ringing here..

Even if we accept that some level of national filtering is desirable to remove the worst offenders, this particular system was undemocratic in creation - and more seriously is deeply undemocratic in operation.

My worry is that first this system targets the child pornographers, but I'm not a pornographer. Next it will go after websites 'glorifying terrorism' - but I'm not a terrorist. When it comes after those critical of religion or the freedom to cause offense, Mr. Dobson: who will speak for me?

Labour has already banned spontaneous protest outside the Houses of Parliament/Trafalgar Square and is pushing for 90-day no-evidence detention. While serious infringements of civil liberty, these pale in comparison to the potential ramifications of this. Freedom of information and expression, at the foundation of our society, is under threat.

I hope you will review the serious lack of democratic credentials of this embryonic, comprehensive internet censorship programme - and recommend to Parliament greater involvement and a correction of direction, before it is too late.

Sources:

Observer article quoted available online at: http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1232422,00.html

IWF Complaints and Appeals Procedure
"Any person or organisation that feels that a URL has been included on the CAI list incorrectly, can appeal. If, on receipt of a complaint, the relevant URL is subsequently found not to contain potentially illegal images, then the URL will be removed from the database. If, however, in the expert opinion of the management at the IWF, the content is still potentially illegal under UK law, then the URL will remain on the list. The complainant can then make further representations in which case the matter will be referred to the NCS POLIT (National Crime Squads Paedophile Online Investigation Team) who will further review the URL concerned and make their judgement. The police judgement is final." - http://www.iwf.org.uk/corporate/page.121.251.htm

Pastor Martin Niemöller's original 'First they came..' poem: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...

Evidence of Government support for Cleanfeed: John Reid wrote the foreword to a related proposal by the NCH Children's charity: http://www.nch.org.uk/uploads/documents/0151_OutofSigh_%20Exec.pdf

Links correct as of 10th December 2006.

World population: 24 billion

2006-12-04T17:39:00.001Z

I read today that there are more chickens than there are humans. I thought "really"?! And actually, the world population of chickens in 2003 was 24 billion. So officially maybe 4 chickens for each of the 6 billion living humans on the planet.

There'll be many species greater in number than humans.. but you'd expect them to be smaller than chickens??

Wikipedia states that eggs in shops are likely to be fertilized - but other expert sources disagree. Bit of a chicken and egg situation here..

Wikipedia on Eggs
Wikipedia on Chickens

Climate Change

2006-11-30T21:11:00.000Z

The IPPR Event today featured Rt. Hon. Charles Clarke MP and Lord Anthony Giddens, alongside the New Economics Foundation. Much discussion revolved around the recent 'Stern report' - a report on the environment by an economist. This point was emphasised further by both Clarke and Giddens: that green issues can hopefully be rescued from the Greens - who they deem too often anti-progress and dogmatic.

Clarke was in favour of green taxes, but only as part of a new 'social contract'. This is the idea that citizens must take up their full responsibilities, but on the basis of certain promises from the State. For example the State might improve public transport, but then expect people to give up their cars. Or it might ring-fence revenue from green taxes to fund green projects. I think this is a useful concept here.

I still feel though that all three speakers might be missing the point. All started with the premise that the Stern report shows conclusively that climate change is happening; that something must be done and that it will make a difference. Whether true or not (I'm yet to read it), the point is that the general public is not convinced. Can you blame them? Scientists assured us bird-flu would wipe us all out a couple of years ago. Before that, BSE was not transmittable to humans. And then it was. Occasionally they say asteroids are about to hit.

Maybe we've only avoided each of those by a whisker and in no small part thanks to the scientists. But the public perception is that they were just wrong. Until that changes, Clarke and Giddens may be arranging deckchairs on the titantic?

The Stern Report

Info and audio from IPPR here.

Protecting religion

2006-11-29T01:37:00.000Z

"A document ... was said to have been prepared by the Met's assistant commissioner, Tarique Ghaffur, who has previously advocated banning flag burning. The proposal also admitted that that a new law outlawing religious hatred, which was passed in February but has yet to be implemented, may prove useless.

"Virtually all activity by protesters could constitute insulting or abusive language, behavior or banners towards particular religions, but would fall outside the remit of inciting religious hatred," it said."
- IRNA

Read the law, Mr. Assistant Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police! It is there not there to prevent incitement of hatred towards religion in general or toward a specific religion (though many hoped it would). It is there solely to protect the individual from attacks on the basis of their religion. Quite rightly (and thanks to the House of Lords).

So the law on religious hatred is not 'useless': it is doing exactly what it set out to do - and all it should aim to do.

When offense becomes an offence

2006-11-29T00:39:00.000Z

One of my friends bought me a book: 'Freedom of Expression is No Offence'. I thought "Why is that even a debate? There's no law against saying things other people find offensive, surely?".

It appears I was optimistic. Things took a step in the wrong direction in the last couple of days, with the police approaching the Attorney General for the right to ban offensive remarks during protests.

Banning the statement of opinions that might cause offence?? And enabling the Police to decide when something is sufficiently offensive??

While I have the utmost respect for the police, I am certain they are not the people to defend civil liberties, protect democracy or defend other freedoms. That's the job of the politicians, on behalf of the citizens. The Police have become increasingly powerful in an - I'm ashamed to say - Labour administration. Remember the idea of a 90-day detention rule?

Back to causing offense. Understand: I'm not in favour of 'Kill those who insult Islam' placards. But that's not wrong because it causes offense: it's wrong because it incites violence, that being a criminal offence.

Let's leave aside causing unintentional offense. I reserve the right to cause intentional offense to anybody I deem deserves it. If somebody says to me "The moon is made of cheese", I should say to them "The moon is a rock.". Perhaps they are offended by my lack of respect for their view. I don't care. They are wrong and I am right.

By the same token, I must allow someone to say to me "You are homosexual. So I hate you". I'll argue against the opinion of course; but I'll disagree with what they say while defending to death their right to say it. (What I could not permit is for their opinion to influence whether they employed me or saved me from a fire or protected me from violence).

It's a constant surprise to me how the lessons learnt over centuries are so consistently ignored by those in power.

A good innings?

2006-11-22T20:49:00.000Z

If you know me you might guess that this, despite the Ashes beginning tonight, is not a post about cricket (because I don't like it*) - but about death. How long can one reasonably expect to be around?

I think most people at 7 years old, at 16 or even at 26 blithely assume that they'll at least make it to 65. The state charges you for a pension, so most people must get there, right?

Around 25% don't. That's a big number, huh? Specifically: on mortality rates in 1980, the chance of a newborn boy e.g. me getting to 65 were 74%. The good news is that the figure has now risen to 84%. Women fare better overall, living 4-5 years longer than guys. Interestingly, the gender-gap is narrowing.

But still. I have a 1 in 7 chance of not getting to 65.

I was playing roulette the other day. I thought I'd be safe, betting on red mostly. Ah.. green zero might come up once in a while. Maybe I'd see it once that night? Four times it came up. Once when I'd bet half my cash on red. The odds on zero are 1 in 37.

At least life expectancy for men has increased by 4 years in just the last 20. That's pretty stunning?

A final thought. You ever have those days where you want to sell everything you own and put it all on red?

Watch a guy from London try it.

Stats taken from the Office of National Statistics. Roulette info from Wikipedia.

(*I love it)

Fair trade MDMA?

2006-11-19T17:58:00.000Z

The latest police anti-drugs initiative points out to middle-class users that the supply of their additives is unavoidably linked to death and brutality back in the places they come from. The argument is that these organic banana-purchasing, fair trade coffee-drinking people are then hypocrites for taking these tarnished substances up their noses at the weekend. Kirsty Wark asked of Pete Doherty if he'd ever considered the human harm his drug-taking supports. (He hadn't.)

But let's analyse the argument.

If consumers in the market had the choice to buy their Class As from ethical suppliers, I should think they would. The reason they don't have that choice is because they are highly illegal. And whose fault is that? It's the government(s) and the police themselves. The argument of the police is self-defeating.

I suspect that the sourcing of coffee, tobacco and even legal drugs causes similar pain in their origin countries. Does the NHS have an ethical drugs-sourcing policy; should one refuse the opium from the nurse until she finds an accredited supplier?

There are many good arguments against the use of illegal drugs. This isn't one of them.

(A related story on NHS inethical sourcing of surgical equipment is here.)

Secrets of Television Production #214

2006-11-18T15:37:00.000Z

From Martha Kearney:
"Tonight I am presenting both halves of Newsnight. That should prevent the technical problem I encountered the other week.

Kirsty was down the Review end and I was rounding up the papers. At the end I was supposed to make a quick getaway so the director can get a certain kind of wide shot. But the floor manager forgot to warn me so I was still attached to the desk with the microphone cable. She came running over and shouted to take cover on the floor. So there I lay while Kirsty read her introduction, praying that I was not appearing on national television, flat out on the studio floor."

Brilliant.

An Athenian City-state for the world?

2006-11-18T03:55:00.000Z

There's a startling piece of analysis on BBC today titled "Web 'fuelling crisis in politics'". Startlingly accurate, I mean - and it's not often one gets that..

Since arriving in London it's amazed me the number of clever, well-informed and hard-working people working in politics. I was kinda hoping to arrive and blow all the cobwebs away with my brilliance - but I've been humbled by the sharp wits and honesty of spirit already here! However, that is not the broader perception.

I've only realised it by attending the wonderful IPPR events, the LSE and others such as GALHA, where I've met MPs like George Galloway or Jack McConnell (First Minister of Scotland), intellectuals like Christopher Higgens and Richard Dawkins, policy advisers and journalists. If I'd have stayed in either the online bubble or even the Manchester one - I'm not sure I'd have made the step towards the understanding that - actually - politics is not full of self-serving, stupid or uncaring snobs that secretly hire rent-boys.

Mr. Taylor is perceptive in identifying that perhaps the Internet will lead to wider and deeper popular involvement in the decisions for our country. I wonder.. can the Internet make an Athenian City-state of the whole world?

He's right to point out that this means citizens 'growing up'. If the 'end of deference' is the 'right', the 'responsibility' must be to provide constructive criticism and ideas - not childish hissyfits of the kind promoted by popular media.

While citizens grow beyond their infantile habits, the government - and politics in general - must do more to demonstrate it's true colours; to show everyone what I've learnt only via physical attendance of its mechanics.

At the end of the article, there's something of an explanation for the clarity of thought: he's ex-head of IPPR! Damn them and their bright ideas.

(I hope the criticism of blogs as negative and unconstructive don't apply to this post!)

Here's a further post on the City-state idea that's worth a quick read.

Press Complaints Commission

2006-11-13T21:34:00.000Z

Today's LSE lecture was from Sir Christopher Meyer. He's the top man at the Press Complaints Commission and was there to discuss censorship and regulation, specifically about the press. The British press is 'self-regulating' and Sir Christopher made a solid defence of this. It was clear that Ofcom wouldn't want to take on its role - but less clear if this was the right strategic decision. The overall point appeared to be that it isn't broke, so it doesn't need fixing. I'm happy to accept that for the moment. The PCC seems to do a solid job?

Saddam

2006-11-06T10:41:00.000Z

Is it complete coincidence that the Iraqi ex-dictator has finally sentenced at the precise moment the Republicans need a final push in the current US Elections?

Or have I just become cynical??

Fidel Castro, by George Galloway

2006-11-01T19:37:00.000Z

Galloway launched his new biography of Fidel Castro today at an event hosted by the flagship Foyles branch on Charing Cross Road. First talking of his admiration for what he sees as a highly intelligent and courageous man, Galloway praised the Cuban revolution and its resilience against the American embargo.

After the talk about the book and some interesting personal insights into Castro's personality and achievements, there was a lively Q&A session with the 50-odd audience. I grabbed the book and had it signed while talking to Mr. George about the Cuba Solidarity Campaign of which I'm a member.

Jack McConnell

2006-10-30T16:04:00.000Z

The Rt. Hon Jack McConnell MSP visited the British Academy (just off The Mall) in London today. He was mostly talking about the great constitutional changes that have occurred in Scotland over the last few years, the success of those - and how foolish it would be to attempt further constitutional upheavel as desired by the Nationalists (pushing for an independent Scotland) when so much good work is already in progress by the newly empowered Scottish Parliament.

With a focus on the variance Scotland has taken to England on education - and the real successes of those policies - Mr. McConnell emphasised the importance of education as the most significant way to promote social mobility.

President José Manuel Barroso

2006-10-16T19:14:00.000+01:00

At the Royal Institute of International Affairs (Chatham House, as it likes to be called) in St James's Square today, José Manuel Barroso gave his keynote speech as President of the European Commission.

He outlined that the EU - and more generally Europe - needs a new raison d'etre. Whereas peace was the guiding principle of the original founders - achieved through combining the coal and steel industries of France and Germany to economically prevent war - this needs now supplementing with a new ambitious goal for the 21st century, said Barroso. That goal, simply put, is to enable Europe to prosper in a globalized world.

It was a powerful, timely speech, delivered with more panache than you might expect.

Transcript from 'Hugo Young Lecture - Seeing through the Hallucinations: Britain and Europe in the 21st century' available free at the Liberal Democrat European Group. Other info at the Chatham House website.

How hung?

2006-09-13T19:11:00.000+01:00

I was with the assistant editor of The Times, Andrew Pierce, yesterday. We were in Soho House for a talk he was giving about - well no-one was quite sure until he gave it (least of all him, I suspect..)

It was actually a fascinating insight into the kind of thing journalists deal with every day. An incisive analysis of the recent Bush/Blair spat - and then of the relative chances of Labour, the Conservative and (even) the LibDems at the next General Election.

But what for what will happen in an election post-Blair? Andrew said 'put your money on a hung parliament'. So I did, at Betfair.

The odds at the moment are 2.38 - 1 for hung, 3.05 - 1 for Tory and 3.75 for a Labour victory. This makes interesting reading! I have, by the way, the utmost regard for Betfair for predicting political outcomes. As a metric it is almost never wrong in it's analysis of the situation to-date in terms of what will actually happen! I feel what people qualified enough to have an opinion yet also prepared to put cold hard cash toward that outcome is useful. It's a neat way of aligning their incentives toward their best, honest prediction. Once collated, the result is useful!

While I was at this event I also met a journalist who works on 'Hard Talk' for News 24 - and the owner of the 'Outlet' website (where I'm looking for a room at the moment, as it happens).

Andrew's off to be assistant ed. of The Telegraph next.

Le Friday Night Fever

2006-08-08T17:28:00.000+01:00

Last Friday afternoon, I hopped on a Eurostar and arrived at a little 2* Hotel in the Bastille area of Paris, around 6pm. After a bit of food and some social skating, our little group from London set off to the start-point of the Paris Friday Night Skate, which is the magnificent Montparnasse building, around 5km away. Three police vans marked the start of the skate with sirens blasting as they headed off to shut down the roads ahead. Five Police motorbikes followed - then the yellow-vested marshals. My group were around the middle as we set off through the wide avenues of night-time Paris (start time is 10pm). The 'Friday Night Fever' had begun and we were on it: a 25-30km skate over 3 hours..

Here's the route we followed:
http://www.pari-roller.com/index.php?p=18&d=1154642400#

The 'banks of the Seine' was the theme for this week's route. We went down and up the tunnels, past many of the landmarks - which I'd never seen before, this being my first trip to Paris.. left and right, all around! There were thousands of skaters, snaking round the streets in a huge procession. Too many to count. Two ambulances followed the skate - and we were assured by our tour leader that people have died in the attempt..

It didn't kill me, but I must admit I struggled near the end! As we rounded the corners after 2 and a half hours - around 12.30am - other skaters were streaming past me on all sides. I nearly got to the point of no-return.. I seriously considered giving up on a group-skate, for the first time (I've done around 7 now).

But then I only bought my skates and started learning how to use them around 10 weeks ago. So this was easily the fastest, furthest skate of my life. And for some reason I'd decided to swap my high-performance wheels for little 'disco' ones. These look immensely pretty! But the power for the 3 LEDS in each of 8 wheels comes from yours truly (which is at least an environmentally-friendly energy-source). They're smaller than normal - and softer too. All of which adds up to an around 50% decrease in speed - or rather increase in required effort! And of course the only person that can't experience their beauty.. is me!

I soldiered on with my funky wheels. I kept telling myself that when I decide to do something, it gets done. And it did get done. Montparnasse came back into view, I found some energy and tricked back to the finish line =:)

Not everyone made it. At least 4 in our group quit at some point - and this is within a group serious enough to spend a few hundred quid going on a foreign skate weekend.

After a 1 AM Capuccino and some water, we skated the half-hour back to the hotel through the empty streets.

The rest of the weekend?

The next day we had a Skate lesson on the steps of Trocadero, overlooking the Eiffel Tower. I wasn't quite able to match the skillz of the French boys - who were wowing the crowds by going down steps. Backwards. Including jumping over their laid-down buddy 5 steps down. To finish, one of them pulled a 'Dead or Alive' style handstand before flipping back onto his skates.. I promised myself I could do that too, with a little training?!

After learning London's topography this way, I reckon it's the best way to quickly get to know a city..

I didn't use the Paris Metro once during the whole weekend, except to get to and from the Eurostar. I only took my skates off for a couple of hours on Sunday - during which time I checked out Rodin's Garden ('the Thinker') and met up with my flatmates who, bizarrely, happened to be in Paris by complete coincidence that exact weekend 'of all the bars in all the world..'

So Paris was an intense, wonderful experience. The people were genuine, friendly and welcoming ..in their own French little way =;) I can't wait to go back..

But then there's the other Friday skates to try yet.. in Amsterdam, Berlin, Barcelona, Geneva, San Francisco, Tokyo..

Truth > offensiveness?

2006-07-25T11:43:00.000+01:00

On CokeZero ads being complained about.. (from Ad industry press)

Another, with the strap "Girlfriends without a five-year plan", sparked complaints that it was offensive because it implied that all women want to do is settle down.

How is that offensive?? Who on Earth has the time and inclination to take offense at that?

Draw the Prophet with a bomb as a head - ok that's offensive.

"You started it"
"No I did not start it"
"Yes you did, you invaded Poland" - that's offensive.

The problem with all the above.. is that they're all true. Sometimes the truth is offensive. It still needs saying sometimes..

FIlmFourFree

2006-07-04T12:17:00.000+01:00

FilmFour is relaunching on Freeview with a 'Fifty films to see before you die' countdown. Good work Channel 4!

I always liked FilmFour with it's jaunty-angle art-housey films. Speaking of which 'Thank you for Smoking' looks good at the moment.

Here's the 10-4 on the 50 films, including the full list.

Some ones I recommend:

2001 - A Space Odyssey
Apocalypse Now
Breakfast Club, The
City of God
Donnie Darko
Fight Club
Pulp Fiction
The Shawshank Redemption

I bought 'Summer Storm' on DVD yesterday (more info from IMDB) - quite excited about that. Sounds a bit like 'Beautiful Thing-on-sea' =:)

I bought that from Asda online ?? It was the cheapest, according to a quick Froogle. So well done Asda for finally remembering about the Internet.

My 'Top 20 films ever' list.

Did you lose the Vietnam war?

2006-06-27T22:02:00.000+01:00

I watched How Vietnam Was Lost on BBC's Storyville last night. A fascinating and well-told story of student riots and botched battle plans. But a question was nagging away at me the entire time: only one side 'lost', so why was it titled that way.. What's wrong with 'How Vietnam Was Won'? I don't think it's pedantic to point this out: whose side are 'we' deemed to be on?

It was South Vietnam - backed by America and South Korea that - by most accounts, lost to North Vietnam - backed by Russia and China. So there's an assumption that the viewer is on the side of those who lost. I'm not American, so how did I lose? I expect Britain was on America's side.. and I'm British - but I don't think that means we could 'lose' this war. And even then - I'm not British to 1960s' Britain, I'm British to 'now' Britain.

The documentary was an American import, I found out afterwards. But isn't that too subtle to broadcast without a caveat? And for a programme that was largely critical of the American decisions of the day, couldn't they see things more from the Vietnamese point of view: they didn't lose the war..

Did you lose the Vietnam war?

Radio Times blurb: "How Vietnam Was Lost. Based on David Maraniss's book 'They Marched into Sunlight', a documentary telling the story of two seemingly unconnected events in October 1967 that changed the course of the Vietnam War. Whilst a US battalion unwittingly marched into a Viet Cong ambush which killed 61 young men - half a world away, angry students at the University of Wisconsin were protesting the presence of Dow Chemical recruiters on campus."

Capitalism is dead

2006-06-19T22:36:00.000+01:00

HOW HARD CAN IT BE TO BUY CHEAP COLOURED SUNGLASSES MADE BY 11 YEAR OLD REFUGEES IN CHINA FOR 4 PENCE A DAY?

Our Capitalist society is going downhill fast I'm telling you. Searched for half an hour on eBay and found nothing! I don't want designer ones I just want cheap and tacky ones I can break - cuz I'm only going to sit on them anyway.

No doubt Peter Mandelson's enforced a new Euro embargo on plastic frivolities.

At this rate I'm going to have visit some 'trendy' London 'market' and pay with those funny metal tokens with that mythical woman on the side.

Outrageous.

Fix it someone.

You just lost the game

2006-06-04T14:11:00.000+01:00

RULE 1: You are playing The Game.

RULE 2: Whenever you think about The Game, you lose.

RULE 3: Loss must be announced

http://www.losethegame.com/

By posting this, I've clearly just lost a point (and complied with Rule 3). However, for every person that reads this, I gain a point and you lose a point (Rule 2). Therefore I am better at The Game than you. I'm winning!

HA!

(Thank you for participating in my study of Meme theory)

The Euston Manifesto

2006-06-04T12:44:00.000+01:00

Today, I have mostly been signing Manifestos.

"The Euston Manifesto is a declaration of principles and beliefs supporting universal human rights, and opposing discrimination and tyranny. It was published online on April 13, 2006 by a collection of academics, bloggers and journalists on the British left." - Wikipedia

Read 'The Euston Manifesto' at their website

After a couple of weeks of careful deliberation, I've now signed the Euston Manifesto with the following comment:
"The Manifesto is a timely, thoughtful and suitably strong statement of many of my personal beliefs. I agree with every part of it (while I think some parts more important than others). Two particular aspects merit mention:

Clause 10 is crucial: People should not accept offensive regimes with 'what right do we have to tell them what to do?'. This is a misinterpretation of (otherwise laudable) pluralism and tolerance. I hope the Manifesto will help people to realise this.

Clause 13 follows: we must retain our right to criticize bad ideas e.g. totalitarianism. This includes those within religion e.g. teaching children the Earth is 6000 years old. Such beliefs should not be protected by law. They need to defend themselves in the battle of ideas just like others.

Finally: I'd like the Manifesto to include more detail on reform of the United Nations, ideally a desire to gain a global, democratic assembly.

I hope the Manifesto goes far!"

One of the 'listed' signers is Sami Zubaida, who 1) wrote the enlightening chapter on Islamism on last year's Level 3 OU course (in 'Making the International') 2) Is Professor of Politics and Sociology at Birkbeck College, where my philosophy society meets.

When I met.. Christopher Hitchens

2006-05-26T15:38:00.000+01:00

I sat adrift of the right of Christopher Hitchens at today's lunch-time talk at the IPPR, there to discuss Thomas Paine's 'Rights of Man', the American revolution and secularisation.

Hitchens credits Paine's work with influencing the Constitution, a key document of the American revolution (1763-1789). That itself influenced the French Revolution (1789-1799) and the 'Rights of Man' can be understood as a defence of that. It seems to have much relevance today, for other countries (Hitchens is a UK ex-pat) and in terms of the general conception of universal human rights. Are there really basic rights that all are entitled to purely by virtue of their humanity? What are the responsibilities that follow from those rights? Do (other) animals have rights? What of our arbitary restriction of rights to the living? It's a short-coming of democracy: future generations are unable to vote on issues that affect them, while the dead leave a legacy that they don't have to personally experience. We had little time, between munching on sandwiches, for these questions - but some of my thoughts are below.

It's interesting that Hitchen's acknowledges that Paine's "self-evident truths" are only such because we deem them to be. They're as good as any 'God-given' rights and can be respected to the same degree, but nevertheless remain socially-constructed, socially-sanctioned. This is an enlightened view, going beyond 'Human rights are innate, unalienable, obvious' to say 'These aren't intrinsic characteristics - but they ought to be treated as such'. The American revolution, Hitchens proposes, is the only one still continuing. The Russian communist revolution was crushed - and the Chinese one slowly becomes capitalism without much fuss. Let's continue the American revolution, Hitchens seems to be saying, and take it global. America leading the world broadly supports my view that the UK remains on Democracy version 1.0, while the US benefits from the improvements in version 2.0.

A single, clear statement of what the British stand for would be helpful. Hitchens is part of a pressure group called Charter 88 that fights for such a thing in the UK. The Human Rights Act is the closest thing we have at the moment - but that is itself under worryingly constant attack.

Not just the State suffers from a close association with the Church. In equal measure, the Church may choose to avoid such association to protect itself. This, Hitchens proposes, is the insight of the American founders - that religion can flourish better by leaving citizens free to believe without interference (or support) of any kind. It's an important time to re-assert the principle of secularism: 'The Pope is fornicating with the emporer', as Hitchens quoted Dante.

I kept my questions to myself this session, though had the opportunity arisen I would ask on Faith schools: where moral values and collective identity can be sourced, if not religion. The lack of secular alternative to this useful purpose served by religious practices is a key concern - and the subject of recent debate in the New Humanist magazine. I'd like education to be separated from religion, so that you wouldn't need a signature from the local priest to get your kids into the best local school - but daily 'worship' (legally compulsory) does serve a necessary (if slightly misguided) purpose. Hitchen's only comment in this area was that at least religion in education serves to mass-produce athiests - were there no association, people might actually grow up into believers!

I talked with Caspar Melville, editor of the New Humanist, afterwards. This mostly consisted of 'I'm a subscriber' and 'do you remember that email chat we had about the Danish cartoons and Shad Thames?'. I also briefly talked with Paul (Clough), the IPPR Finance Director and Ruth Eldridge (IPPR Events Officer) about routes into this kind of work.

Related links:

Charter 88 for a British Bill of Rights

Hitchen's book 'Thomas Paine's Rights of Man: a biography'

Wikipedia on Hitchens

Hitchens was voted number 5 top World intellectual in a (unscientific) poll run by Foreign Policy / Prospect magazines. They were:

Noam Chomsky linguistics expert and critic of US foreign policy
Umberto Eco writer and academic
Richard Dawkins Oxford professor of public understanding of science
Vaclav Havel playwright and leader of Czech velvet revolution
Christopher Hitchens journalist, author, pro-Iraq war polemicist

- The Guardian

(Noam Chomsky did a lecture at Manchester University a short while ago but I couldn't make it)

New Humanist magazine

Dante (Alighieri) wrote 'The Divine Comedy', which isn't the band - and had something to do with an Inferno.

Wettest Week of the Week

2006-05-26T15:10:00.000+01:00

Citiskate have renamed 'National In-line Skating Week' to 'National In-line Skating Wet'; their latest email was titled 'Will we EVER skate again?'

WHERE IS SUMMER??

Last week gets my official 'Wettest Week of the Week' award, awarded weekly on a week-by-week basis!

Update 27th May: News is that this is officially the wettest May since 1984. In celebration, the first drought order was issued today.

What?

The average Wikipedian

2006-05-26T10:08:00.000+01:00

"The average Wikipedian on English Wikipedia (1) is male, (2) is technically-inclined, (3) is formally educated, (4) speaks the English language to an extent, (5) is White, (6) is aged in their twenties, thirties or forties, (7) is from a predominantly Christian country, (8) is from an industrialized nation, (9) is heterosexual, and (10) is more inclined toward intellectual pursuits than toward practical skills or physical labor."
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias

9 out of 10 ain't bad?

Also
"Viewpoints of individuals who are focused on other projects, e.g. their work or life, will tend to be underrepresented."

Damn those time-consuming projects!

Eurovision rocks!

2006-05-22T11:33:00.000+01:00

Amen the unstoppable mummy, Enary the manipulative valkyrie, Kalma the biker-zombie and Kita the alien manbeast?

It must be LORDI and the AROCKALYPSE!
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2006/05/22/254.html

I give a hearty 'douze point' to Finland for their brilliant, subversive entry to Eurovision. 'Douze point' to Europe too, for collectively voting this piece their favourite song of the evening - and by a country-mile, with a record breaking 292 points!

Eurovision rocks!

The UK entry wasn't too bad either. Didn't get huge points, but a fair attempt.

There is actually a band called 'Arockalypse now': http://www.soundclick.com/bands/pageartist.cfm?bandID=419960

LOL

Thought for the day

2006-05-18T11:57:00.000+01:00

“Human beings, those at least who reflect on their situation in this world, may be divided into three kinds. The first kind includes all who maintain that there is nothing beyond the prison walls, and that the prison itself could be transformed into a paradise under an improved system of heating and lighting and with a more equitable distribution of floor space and the products of the kitchen garden.

To the second kind belong those who from chance glimpses, from leaves and scents blown over the walls, and landscapes seen in dreams, have formed an idea of another world, happy and unconfined, into which they hope one day to be liberated, but when they do not know, and under what conditions they rather apprehend than are able clearly to define.

The third kind, which in temperament bears some resemblance to the first, takes over the hints and glimpses of the second, constructs out of them a detailed account of the world beyond the prison walls, its system of government and its immigration laws, and on the strength of this special knowledge, of unique value if correct, claims a general jurisdiction over the conduct and the thoughts of the prison inmates-a claim which is naturally disputed by the first kind, for whom the prison is a self-contained and self-dependent phenomenon.”
- Hugh Kingsmill (an English writer)

From the 'Pub philosophy' group, Philosophy For All

http://www.pfalondon.freeserve.co.uk/dearpfa.htm

What pension crises?

2006-05-15T10:38:00.000+01:00

So what's with this pension crises?

Stories like this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4765975.stm

..claim that because more of us will be older, without new young people to support us, there will be some sort of government financial meltdown.

All the facts show that young people tend to be better educated and better qualified than older, due to e.g. spread of best-practise teaching, interactive whiteboards, more of them going to University, the availability of Wikipedia. Better qualified people get paid more. People who get paid more produce higher tax revenues per person.

So why can't we have a smaller number of people contributing enough to support a larger number of old people?

I've not done the maths so I don't know how realistic the idea is - but there's enough truth in it to make it worthy of mention in the debate. Yet it never is. Why?

Similarly 'ooh Europe has a problem because its population is shrinking relative to other regions' - but if it's the most powerful and has the best ideas.. who cares about numbers?

Both theories make the mistake of assuming people are of equal economic or cultural value. Generally, younger > older.

12 year old babies

2006-05-12T15:16:00.000+01:00

Inspiration for this post is

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/4764417.stm

I note how the girl 'fell pregnant', rather than 'got pregnant' (in the headline at least).

It's structure vs agency in that the blame in the article is laid at the door of a lack of education provided by the local authorities (structure), rather than the girl herself or her parents (agency).

Can we blame a girl for 'enjoying being pregnant', when as a society we still encourage it as 'the point' for women? In her head I expect she's fulfilled her socially-constructed role.

My evidence is: We give 4-year old girls little baby-buggies to push along. And 'self-wetting' dolls to put in them. And little 'cook for the family' sets from Tomy. In this way girls are socially conditioned to see their role as having babies.

Boys get WWF wrestling dolls (man they were so cool, PILEDRIVVERRRRRRtakethatSidtheSnake) and machine-guns. They are socially conditioned to become homicidal maniacs.

And as adults, there's all the TV programmes about 'what, you're 35 and haven't had babies yet??' and the female glossy mags..

Our society (and almost all societies) is structured to encourage, promote and condition women to have kids. There are tax benefits and paid time off work. Women may be free to take or leave it, but the structural compulsion remains.

I worry about democracy. If we stick with one person one vote, yet it's only the stupid people that have babies while the smart people have many less (which is the case) - what kind of a society are we headed towards?

I'm not suggesting we control/influence population growth (though I forsee things going that way). I suggest we need a system better than democracy - or rather an evolution of it.

Alan Turing's Ways

2006-04-18T15:11:00.000+01:00

Some research I did on Alan Turing (just for fun, he's an important guy) - and connections to me:

He was born in Paddington, London. His Blue Plaque is on Warrington Crescent, a 2 minute walk from my flat, where the Warrington Hotel is. That's one of my locals!
He fell in love with a boy, Christopher Morcom, at public school - but he died of tuberculosis in their final year, leaving Turing heartbroken.
He was a marathon runner. Just 11 minutes short of the time that won the (contemporary) 1948 Olympics.
He worked on the Manchester Mark 1 - one of the world's first modern computers - but mostly on software.
Alan Turing is sat on a bench in Sackville park, Manchester. You can go sit next to him. I've sat there! (It's a bronze statue) Notably, this park is both in the heart of the gay village and near the University of Manchester, site of the Manchester Mark 1.
Part of the Manchester inner ring-road is the Alan Turing Way.
He was fascinated by fibonacci sequences (as am I). Particularly in plants. Fibonacci himself was more interested in rabbit reproduction! Earlier work on this mathematical discovery was done by Jainists, amongst others. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibonacci_sequence)
Bertrand Russell was an early influence on Turing. However, he argued with Wittgenstein, at Cambridge, about the importance of mathematics in understanding the world. Broadly, Turing was for, Wittgenstein. was against. I spent last weekend in Cambridge =:)
Aged 40, he was arrested for gross indecency: "While working at Cambridge, Turing would often take walks in the less reputable parts of town. On Oxford Street in 1951, Turing came upon a 19 year old street urchin called Arnold Murray. The boy was clearly starving, so Turing invited him to lunch at a nearby restaurant. Soon, Arnold was making trips to Turing's apartment at Cambridge and staying the night." (http://www.hacknot.info/hacknot/action/showEntry?eid=75) (Some accounts place this event in Manchester. Both have an 'Oxford Street')
He was forced by the medical professionals of the time, to undergo 'hormone therapy'. He was injected with oestrogen for a year, to 'control his lust'. This is a warning against medical knowledge being confused with social!
He lost his GCHQ clearance as a result of his criminal conviction, despite getting an OBE for his work on cryptography that helped win the war (Enigma).
He committed suicide aged just 42 (2 years after his arrest). He ate an apple laced with cyanide.
Some say this choice of method was a homage to his favourite film 'Snow White' by Disney (lol - how camp??).
Some say the Apple computer logo (picture it) is a homage to Turing.
The sequel to '2001: A Space Odyssey', called '2010: Odyssey Two', features the man who invented/programmed HAL9000. He works in a completely barren cubicle, bar a single photograph of Alan Turing.

Mostly from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_turing - but edited for your convenience.

Election Results 2005

2005-05-06T23:54:00.000+01:00

Me old mate Mark Leech indeed WON WITHINGTON!! Just as Tony and Gordon
predicted in their email! A 14% swing, no less.

So mine wasn't an insignificant prediction. Bradley held here for 8 years,
and his office opposite my road is just across from the Conservative club.
There is no Lib Dem equivalent.

I wanted to bet £20 he'd win it, but I couldn't, because it wasn't even in
the list of marginals!

Instead, I bet on a majority of 1-60 seats, at 8-1. 61-80 was 5-1 I think.
The majority is 66! Damnit. I'm pretty good though, you must admit..

As for voting Conservative in High Lane..
"A slim Conservative majority of 929 was swamped by a 12.9% swing to the
Liberal Democrats on May 1 1997, and Andrew Stunell’s winning margin of
11,814 was his party’s third largest."

There was just a 1% swing LibDem to Conservative this year. The electorate
have spoken! And they said, "Shove your xenophobic corporatism up your
arse!"

Not only have you voted for the Conservatives, you've voted for Michael
Howard, who was responsible for the biggest piece of gay-bashing legislation
of recent times! He still believes that people can be persuaded to be gay!

Which - frankly I agree with, but I differ on whether that's good or not!

I think voting Tory is criminal. And criminals don't get a vote. So you
can't vote next time, K?

This was a party political broadcast on behalf of Pharkie

Geography quiz

2005-04-20T14:44:00.000+01:00

http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/country_europe_G2_drag-drop.swf

28/44 = 64%

Avg error: 233 miles

Time: 415 secs

It's a bit unfair with how specific you need to be with the tiny 'dot'
states. And I didn't realise you could expand the window!

Good quiz tho! I forgot Liechtenstein existed, it's so tiny on me map. And
Monaco! Serves them right for not being in the EU.

Easy? Andorra, or 'shrub-covered land' - I must admit I was barely aware of
its existence..?

I thought Luxembourg was a bit small and insignificant, but now I know that
Europe's real small states are Andorra, Monaco, Vatican City, Liechtenstein
and San Marino! There's certainly room to question the sovereignty of these
places..

I didn't know Monte Carlo was in Monaco =:-o

Must try harder =:)

OK I'm back after a few more goes.

I noticed that quiz is ‘level 3’, which is pretty hard - but do you know it goes up to LEVEL NINE???

http://www.sheppardsoftware.com/European_Geography.htm

OMG - even I’m not that masochistic.

OK OK I'm back.

I got 85% on level 8..  (I was lying about the masochistic bit)

Prejudice test

2005-04-20T13:01:00.000+01:00

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/uk/selectatest.html

"Your data suggest a strong automatic preference for Young relative to Old"

"Your data suggest little or no automatic preference for GAY PEOPLE relative
to STRAIGHT PEOPLE."

Is it me or does this test have so many flaws I wouldn't even know where to
begin?! It's about as scientific as a polo mint. But fun all the same..

I must admit, I found it a mental struggle to associate 'good' with 'old' or 'evil' with 'young', and much easier for the opposite. But 'old' doesn't just relate to people. Old cars, old sofas and old bibles (heh) are uniformly less 'good' than 'young' ones.

I found it easier to say Gay = Good. This was compromised by involving LESBIANS tho.. Many (most?) of the symbols were female/female, and that isn't 'gay' to me. I'd have a much stronger instinct towards e.g. two greek male symbols as Good. One of the people in the 'gay wedding' looked like a transvestite??

Who should you vote for?

2005-04-19T13:06:00.000+01:00

Need help deciding who to vote for?

http://www.whoshouldyouvotefor.com/

My result below =:-)

LGB electioneering

2005-04-13T12:40:00.000+01:00

"Why should the LGB community vote for you?”

BRITISH NATIONAL PARTY

Doctor Phill Edwards, BNP National Press Officer was very quick of the mark,
with this response:

“Prior to 1967 homosexuality was a crime and led to prison. It is unnatural
and an undesirable lifestyle which can only be remotely tolerated if the
current law is obeyed i.e. consenting adults IN PRIVATE. The constant
promotion of this queer lifestyle on TV, soaps, radio, news papers etc as
something which it is not - equivalent to heterosexism (sic) - drains my
tolerance and I find the entire topic revolting, disgusting and scary.
Queers should remain celebate and don't talk about it. You should all be
ashamed of yourselves."
Dr Phill Edwards. BNP National Press Officer.

Looks like he didn't read the question?? If it were me, I'd have said E.g.
"Do what you like in private, but vote for us because we're anti-Europe".
But no!

It's one thing to be a bigotted, anachronistic, naïve fool - but another to
be incompetant at your main job!

I'm sure you've spotted lots wrong with his comment already, particularly
the poor English, but I thought it worth pointing out that homosexuality was
not illegal prior to 1967. The first real legislation was Henry VIII's
'Buggery Act' that buggered buggery from 1533.

So even being generous - it was illegal in the larger part of the world, for
about 450 years out of the perhaps 2 million year history of humanity.
Something of a temporary blip?

Are you worth it?

2005-04-12T15:31:00.000+01:00

Ever thought it impossible to put a value on life? Apparently not..?!

“One way to value a life is to calculate a person’s HUMAN CAPITAL by working out how much he or she would earn were they to survive to a ripe old age. This could result in very different sums being paid to victims of the same accident. After an air crash, probably more MONEY would go to the family of a first-class passenger than to that of someone flying economy. This may not seem fair. Nor would using this method to decide what to spend on safety measures, as it would mean much higher expenditure on avoiding the death of, say, an investment banker than on saving the life of a teacher or coal miner. It would also imply spending more on safety measures for young people and being positively reckless with the lives of retired people.

Another approach is to analyse the risks that people are voluntarily willing to take, and how much they require to be paid for taking them. Taking into account differences in WAGES for high death-risk and low death-risk jobs, and allowing for differences in education, experience, and so on, it is possible to calculate roughly what value people put on their own lives. In industrialised countries, most studies using this method come up with a value of $5m–10m. "
- http://www.economist.com/research/Economics/alphabetic.cfm?TERM=LIBERALISATION#LIFE

A brief history of Casanova

2005-04-05T13:34:00.000+01:00

"Casanova toured the cities of Europe and seemed to be able to turn his hand
to anything. He introduced the National Lottery to France, he knew Mozart
and Voltaire and persuaded the Empress of Russia to introduce a new
calendar. He even wrote one of the world's first science fiction novels.

The Latin lover was also a soldier in the Venetian army, a preacher, an
alchemist, a gambler, a violinist, and a spy. He translated Homer's Iliad
into Italian, too."
- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/106644.stm

Impressive! He knew Voltaire?? I want to have knew Voltaire!

"It is precisely by virtue of my coarse tastes that I am happier than other
men, since I am convinced that my tastes make me capable of more pleasure,"
he (Casanova) wrote.

"Like an 18th century Jeffrey Archer, but funny. He wasn't born an
aristocrat, he lied his way into jobs and positions of power with charm and
cheek. He's just irresistible."
- Davies, on the real Casanova

--
"One can promise actions, but not feelings, for the latter are involuntary.
He who promises to love forever or hate forever or be forever faithful to
someone is promising something that is not in his power."
- Friedrich Nietzsche, 'On the History of Moral Feelings'

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

2005-02-20T03:05:00.000Z

This cryptic latin means "After that, therefore because of that" - that if one thing follows another, it is caused by the other - which often isn't the case. So correlation is not the same as causation. But you see "post hoc ergo propter hoc" used to mislead and persuade all the time. A simple example is "Children with bigger feet do better at spelling tests". So bigger feet causes increased intelligence? Probably not. In this example, as is often the case, it is a third factor, that of the increased age of the child, which actually causes both.

Let me introduce a new, occasional series to this blog: "Questions you never thought to ask".

Question #1: What is the terminal velocity of a cat?

Terminal velocity is the maximum speed at which an object will fall, given that wind resistance increases the faster it goes, until it cancels out any acceleration and the object's speed stays constant. Heavier objects have faster terminal velocities than lighter ones. The shape of the object will affect its actual speed, since that changes the air resistance.

Experts in the New York Times were wondering why the cats that arrived at a Vet's Surgery were more likely to survive, the higher their fall:

"Amazingly, the cats that fell longer distances fared better than the others. Of the 22 cats that fell over 7 stories, 21 survived; of the 13 cats that fell over 9 stories, all survived. Sabrina, who fell 32 stories onto concrete, suffered only a minor lung puncture and a chipped tooth"

They came up with a theory to explain this unexpected result:

"Terminal velocity for a cat is 60 miles per hour; for an adult human: 120 mph. Until a cat reaches terminal velocity, the two speculated, the cat reacts to acceleration by reflexively extending its legs, making it more prone to injury. But after terminal velocity is reached, they said, the cat might relax and stretch its legs out like a flying squirrel, increasing air resistance and helping to distribute the impact more evenly."
- http://www.cut-the-knot.com/do_you_know/misuse.shtml

(Extra points for comparing a descending cat to a flying squirrel)

Seems to make sense?? Figured it out yet? The problem here is that.. if a cat has a really high fall, it isn't going to end up at the vet's at all. What use is a vet to a very dead cat? Conversely, if it's a short fall, the cat will just give itself a lick and carry on as if it meant to fall - otherwise unharmed and again not needing a vet. So the conclusion that they were attempting to justify, that higher falling cats tend to survive more, is the fallacy of Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc. There was no causal relationship between the height of the fall and the survival of the cat.

'Post hoc ergo propter hoc' is the title of the second episode in Series 1 of TV's brilliant West Wing. That's where I first heard it, and I fetched the script, just for you:

Bartlet: "CJ, on your tombstone, it's going to read 'Post hoc, ergo propter hoc'!"
CJ: "Okay, but none of my visitors are going to be able to understand my tombstone!"
-pause-
Bartlet: "Twenty-seven lawyers in the room, anybody know 'post hoc, ergo propter hoc'?"
"It means," the President lectures, "(that) one thing follows the other therefore it was caused by the other. But it's not always true. In fact, it's hardly ever true."
- http://westwing.bewarne.com/2posthoc.html