Update

It's been a month or so since my last post, mostly due to not having enough to focus into a post (I usually like to have a couple of things I can link together, e.g. a theory and a practical recent example), but also quite busy with other things although I don't really have much to show for it!

Anyway, here's another random post to show that I still exist (at least I think I do).

We spent the last couple of days in London with Marco and Helene and had a great time. Max had an absolute ball too (we had to wake him up at 8.50 this morning!!).

I have been accepted onto an MSc in Database Systems in September. It's a couple of nights a week in London and so it puts even more pressure on us to be "darn sarf" before then.

Watch this space ....

New directions in music part 23

I'm often on the lookout for new kinds of music. It seems to me that (apart from particularly esoteric and often unlistenable music) there is no new direction obvious at the moment. In the past 100 years Western popular music has taken on many new forms from (not in any particular order) Jazz, Blues, Rock and Roll, 60's pop, Rock, Prog Rock, Punk, New Romantic, New Wave, Heavy Metal, Thrash, Death Metal, Electronic and Dance, to miss out many others. Each new scene has something unique to it, but more recently the advances in technology have opened a new world of innovation.

In my view most of the newest forms of electronic music are still very rhythm-based. I'm very fond of electronic music, however I wonder what the new direction will be.

It could be said that Aphex Twin resides at the extremes of modern music (e.g. see this), however it's really only pushing the boundaries of rhythm. I love Aphex Twin's work and rate him very highly, however I wonder whether the next phase in popular musical development will be to move away from rhythm all together.

Take Imogen Heap's song Hide And Seek (hopefully still here). Whilst having some semblance of rhythm (it's very difficult to be completely arrhythmic) it is constructed solely of electronically-altered voice noises.

I can foresee a new movement based on sounds capes (I know that other artists like Sigur Ros and before them Slowdive and many, many other artists before them, have meddled with this, but always with traditional instruments, chord progressions, and time signatures).

I'm sure that I am genuinely ignorant of some artists who are already producing this kind of electronic sound scape, however it's not reached the popular consciousness yet (Enya notwithstanding!!) and certainly can't be said to be a movement as such.

Perhaps a combination of styles not yet combined might be a way forward, e.g. Prog Rock and Punk, or 60's pop and electronic ambient sound scape.

Either way I wish someone would hurry up and do it instead of churning out the dross that habituates the popular music scene at the moment!

(I would do it myself, but I probably don't have the talent and anyway, I'm too busy making databases)

Why is this funny? / I love the Internet / Slow-motion violence / Imogen Heap

Saturday Night Live's Dear Sister sketch (here) makes me laugh every time. It's obviously supposed to be very silly (and is based on the Season 2 finale of The O.C. ridicu-soap: here). Why is it funny? Apart from being incongruous (see this link for ideas on ingongruity and comedy) each time the music plays there's a sort of fictional link created between the music and the shooting as if it's the music itself that is either directly linked with the event or, in effect, is actually causing the shooter to act. This is obviously ridiculous and I reckon it's some part of this idea that is an inconsistent and unsuitable action that causes us to laugh. Monty Python, "More Cowbell" and so many more comedy artists do this too.

This has obviously struck a chord with many people if the "Dear Sister" phenomenon is anything to go by. It's a circumstance of our modern age (a good one I think) that the Internet occassionally throws up jokes, pastiches and homages to particular events (usually at someone else's expense, e.g. the Star Wars Kid).

I love the inventiveness and collective spirit that these skits pervade. In fact I just love the Internet. Full. Stop.

I'm in a position to remember what the world was like before the Internet and, whilst I have no complaints and the outcome of the exposure to so much information is not yet known, I envy younger people today. I only hope that the Information middle-Age brings yet more pleasure to people in its creativity.

Having said that, I can't help worry about the subject matter of the "Dear Sister" SNL sketch. Is it really OK to portray mindless shooting? I think not. Personally the funniness of that idea could have been shown with a fraction of the violence.

I sometimes feel that I'm a bit of a prude when it comes to what people should and shouldn't be allowed to watch. I prefer to think of it as being more intelligent and aware than most, however. It seems obvious to me (and many psychologists too) that the content of TV and movies has a direct influence on those people who watch it and a diet of mindless and gruesome violence can have a deep effect on people.

This history of violence on the screen is fairly recent and follows a general pattern of society's gradual waning of standards. I applaud the move to show more accurate and realistic events, but draw the line when it becomes stylised to be more appealing. See this for more detail.

Since having a son I find violence on screen more offputting and I simply can't watch violence against children or innocents. I think I'm quite unusual in this, but I don't have any regrets about feeling this way. This disturbed me due to the father's complete selfishness with regards to his daughter's wellbeing. There's no way I would show Max something inappropriate just to feed my ego.

Again, having said this I think there's a balance to be struck and it's important to educate youngsters about the world in all it's gory glory. Let's just wait until they're over 7 shall we?!

(Christina had some very good arguments about this from an "innocence" perspective and threw in some Blake for good measure, but I think I should come back to that in a later post).

The reason I came across the Dear Sister thing in the first place is due to researching the work of Imogen Heap who I found out about a couple of days ago (thanks Marco). She's an artist who I have not heard before (amazingly!) and I have not stopped listening to her music for the last two days (especially this and this). Her music is extremely melodic, intelligently worded and technologically inventive. This is a perfect recipe for my tastes and I will certainly be obtaining her back catalogue. One to watch out for as Dave Lee Travis might say.

On a musical tip Jeff Healey died a couple of days ago. I was genuinely saddened by this as I have loved his music for years and his first album (See The Light) wasn't off my stereo when I was a teenager. I saw him play in Sheffield in about 1989 and was blown away. RIP. x

It's a bit of a rambling post, this, and I feel that I'm probably starting to repeat myself. Anyway, I guess I should go and review some internet phenomena.... or something.

Owning Up, Justice and Revenge - Tales from Ancient Rome #1

The period in Roman history called the "Year Of The Four Emperors" is a fascinating and compelling time.

When Nero's successor Galba (a sensible and careful emperor, although foolishly so) was brutally killed over 100 people claimed the credit. This was in order to get on the good side of Otho (the next emperor).

Otho was no doubt pleased and a list of these names was drawn up.

Otho served as emperor for 3 months before committing suicide, perhaps as a noble gesture.

When Otho's successor Vitellius gained control he executed every one of the 100 or so people who had claimed to have killed Galba (Galba had helped Vitellius the year before).

What goes around comes around.

The first black president of the USA

Barack Obama is doing well in the presidential nomination votes (OK there's only been one so far, but New Hampshire polling looks good as I write this).

About 10 minutes ago I had a Dead Zone moment! It probably says more about me than the vibe in the US at the moment, but I have a bad feeling about his chances. Not his chances of winning, but his chances of staying alive.

I think he's the best candidate by far in many, many ways and I hope more than I ever have before that he makes it all the way to the presidency, but I think there is a long way to go and 5 factors make me think that he'll be assassinated before he gets there:
1. those rallies are so uncontrolled it's crazy. Sure there is security, but it's nigh on impossible to stop a truly determined assassin because ....
2. technology is easy to come by (some of it designed by the US military) which can enable relatively easy "kills"
3. there are waaaay too many hand guns in the US and very easily available (especially in some states which he will definitely have to go to)
4. there is going to be a lot of racist annimosity towards him if he wins the nomination because it basically becomes a two person race and it's pretty close these days so it could certainly go either way
5. it's sod's law that just when something very good can happen it gets snatched right underneath the planet's nose

As I mentioned before I sincerely, truly hope this does not happen, both for Obama and family and for the whole planet. I would not be surprised, however, if it did and this planet is plenty fucked-up for it to happen any day.

Global warming, a kick up the backside and the inner life of God

"That all involved in such dialogue expressly recognize the limitations of our ability to make definitive assertions about the inner life of God."

What?!

This is the first recommendation in the agreed statement of the North American Orthodox-Catholic Theological Consultation (hereon known as NAOCTC) in regard to the Filioque issue (link).

As is my want, I was browsing Wikipedia this morning and happened to go from an article on Gregory of Nazianzus (Wiipedia's featured article today) to an article on The Filioque (using my basic knowledge of Latin I translate this as "and the Son").

It's another fascinating insight into the inner workings of the Christian Church. I find the whole period of early Christianity compelling since most of what we know today about the Church was formed during the first few hundred years after Christ. These little tidbits (e.g. The Filioque) are very interesting to me since, not only do they contain archaic language (some nice Latin) and great history, but they show how important the ideas, prejudices and foibles of Man are to the Church.

This issue over the Holy Spirit and from whence it emanates is one that helped split east-west the Church a thousand years ago and still rages today, although the current Pope seems to favour reconciliation over this in some way.

The NAOCTC put together a document to help mend the schism. The quote above is the first line. What struck me this morning most is that they feel that there's a need to write this down and that God has an "inner life"! What does that mean? Where He does His shopping, what music He listens too (Genesis obviously)?! It made me laugh anyway (more of an intellectual pat on the back/chuckle than a guffaw).

..

The wife and I spent a lovely New Year's Eve watching telly and drinking fizzy wine. We watched 2 hours of "Earth - The Power Of The Planet" which is an excellent programme about the science of the Earth. Not only is it fascinating and insightful, but just a little bit environmentally preaching. I don't blame Dr Stewart at all for his viewpoint: I think it's a necessary one, however we were both slightly depressed by the implication that, as a species, we're basically fucked! Unless of course the environment doesn't quite manage to slip into another deep ice age.

The issue of global warming is hardly off the radar of any conscientious Westerner these days, but I still can't help thinking that it will either

a) be fine: the Earth is much more homeostatic than we think (certainly over the timescale of hundreds of years)
b) be the kick up the arse that humanity needs

With regard to the second point I believe that humanity is in desperate need for some sort of catastrophe in order to give it the jolt it needs to start behaving better to itself. I am reminded of Star Trek and its rose-tinted view of humanity when I think of this stuff. Perhaps I too have the same spectacles on, but I hope that humans can get it together before it's too late. It's up to our governments to do more to ensure that we're doing the right thing instead of pandering to the easy and populous arguments.

It may be too late for the human-friendly environment, but in any event this would unlikely wipe out the species. It's not too late for us as humans though and any of us that survive the next catastrophe (there will be one at some point) should be more like Roddenberry's vision than Thatcher's.

Diminished responsibility

An article in the news today (link) made me question what the writer's assumptions are.

The basic assumption he makes is that there is a baseline level at which human beings are responsible for their actions. Go beyond the line and you become "mad", but stay below it and you're fine.

This is an absurd idea. Surely the mental capacity of humans varies according to type and on a continuous scale. To choose a dividing line between those who are mad and those who are not is plainly wrong.

What about temporary "madness". Someone can be completely sane most of the time, but occasionally flip out and do something completely mad. How does one judge their responsibility to their behaviour? Are they allowed to diminish their responsibility for specific periods or should their sane selves control their behaviour all the time.

Even those who inhabit the "sane" areas of behaviour are occasionally "mad". What about the person who is violent at a football match. They may well have a day job and responsibility, but somehow they lose their sense sometimes. Of course their behaviour is controlled by the law (if they cause physical violence and are caught then there are penalties (pardon the pun!)), but could they not claim diminished responsibility, either through alcohol abuse or sport-related euphoria?

The only fair way to deal with this is to treat everyone the same. The punishment should fit the crime so, for example, if a murder is committed then (unless completely accidental) the punishment should be the same for everyone regardless of their mental state. This gives an added responsibility on society to protect those susceptible to bouts of violence (for example) form hurting others.

The bigger issue for me is how to deal with the concept of free will. There is still a belief that humans act under their own volition - a kind of spiritual being who controls the body. This is nonsense and it's obvious to me that we are no more than a collection of cells which interact in immensely complicated ways to create the behaviour we experience.

If this is the case then it is arguable that we all have diminished responsibility. There is not one of us alive who can claim that it wasn't their biological structure that dictated their behaviour.

This line of thought quite quickly leads to ideas like eugenics and existentialism, however it's not one which should be shied away from. I readily accept that everything I do is in response to biological reactions cause by yet more complex biological reactions and interactions.

Unfortunately this argument is theoretical and, since I don't think it would benefit many of us if our society were to change into one which fully recognised this theory, is unlikely to be made real until the average intelligence of society increases substantially. In contrast, however, our society would benefit if it were to change into one in which its members were respected along humanist lines rather than capitalist, tribalist or religious lines.

For now there is another person's life wrecked (Kerry Barker) simply because our society (the morons who govern and administer us) cannot get its act together (or is too selfish to really want to).

Fela Kuti; a curse; and the proliferation of digital media

I am cursed with an almost stupidly wide-ranging love of music. I adore music by artists as diverse as "Fluff, fluff, fluff and Cuddlyness" to "Napalm Death". And I seriously like the music. It's not an affectation. My taste in music effects and is affected by my mood.

I have had this view since I was in my late teens when I was particularly interested in independent music, but also had a love of folk, classical, blues, jazz, heavy metal, rock, prog-rock, electronic and (some) pop music. There was a time, about 10 years ago, when I thought I knew all the music I was ever likely to need to know. I also had bought most of these recordings so my musical world seemed complete (and just a little dull). I was wrong.

As I get older my taste has changed slightly: I don't like as much pop music as I used to and I like more jazz and funk (I also believe that the vast majority of modern music is intrinsically inferior). Over the past few years I have begun to appreciate progressive rock much more and have recently opened a treasure-trove of music I had previously never heard of. Music from bands like Magma, Klaus Doldinger's Passport and very recently (yesterday) Fela Kuti.

Early-70s Afro-Beat and Jazz-Funk is something I have not listened to very much, but I find now that it's something I have definitely been missing. Some of the Afro-Beat stuff like Fela Kuti, Santana etc is mind-blowing! Even modern groups like The Budos Band are producing electrifying jazzy, funky, Afro-Beat-type music.

So I realised that there is a whole new world of music I have never heard before and that I enjoy immensely.

Not only have I found this new seam in the coalface of media, but the way that all media are transmitted and stored has been revolutionised in the last few years. I am slowly digitising all my music onto a home computer which acts like a media storage device and allows me to play music through any other computer connected to the home network (including my PS3!) (don't get me started on the licensing issues!!). I also download several albums a month from the Internet at little cost.

There are social implications of this proliferation of media which Max will experience. When I was younger I had restricted access to the music that I liked. Not only did it have to be bought from a real shop (!), but it was expensive and required specialist equipment (vinyl record player etc). When I wanted to watch a video of my favourite bands playing their music it either simply didn't exist or was unavailable or was broadcast on one of the four TV channels at 2.30am!

One particular time I remember trying to record the music from a live ACDC video that my dad had videotaped from the TV by sellotaping a microphone in front of the (mono) TV speaker and pressing play and record on the crappy tape recorder I had. This barbaric methodology is in stark contrast to the way Max will undoubtedly find media.

Youtube is something that has revolutionised the process and I absolutely adore what Youtube have done, but I wonder whether something has been lost by having so much information available so readily.

In any event I'm going to need new headphones soon (and probably new ears!!).

José Martí and Chrisopher Hitchins

I've been turned around fairly recently (not that I was ever completely anti-war: it's far too complicated to be only on one side or another). I am starting to believe more and more that the appropriate response to Islamic fundamentalism is not appeasement. It's far more complex than the situation Chamberlain was in in 1939 and there are certainly good arguments for and against I think.
Christopher Hithchens tells a good story about Barbary Coast pirates and Thomas Jefferson. This episode from history pits Islam against Christianity (link) more than a hundred years before the current conflict. The upshot is that the pirates blatantly used the Koran to excuse their actions of slave-taking since those slaves were infidels. This history of infidelity (sic) has been the cause (excuse) of many, many religious wars going back millennia, but is relevant in this argument because there's a feeling in the West that Islam is out to get the West and destroy all infidels. Is this really the case or, more likely, the few extremists who we hear about? It's a very complicated argument and the conspiracy theorists would have us believe that it's a neo-conservative plot to keep us afraid of Islam. Certainly in my experience I have met a few Muslims and they are generally the same as anyone else.

Is it me and my pseudo-Christian sensibilities or are Islam-led regimes more cruel and oppressive and naturally infidel-hating? I suspect that it's a bit of both, e.g. there are infidel-haters in all societies (Christian to Muslim too), however the Taliban are certainly more extreme.

In spite of my intellectual dilly-dallying my inclination is to mistrust a culture that places pressure on women to cover their bodies completely. How much of this is tradition and welcomed by some women is debatable, but it doesn't do a cause much help.

What impressed me this morning, however, is a statue of Jose Marti in New York (link). Marti was a Cuban revolutionary and politician who lived for a time in New York. He is a national hero in Cuba.

Perhaps my impression is wrong, but I get the feeling that, especially the US, but also most Western countries, regard struggle and sacrifice as high virtues and socialist ideals are valued strongly (even some communist ones). For a statue of this calibre to be placed in a foreign city speaks volumes about a country, i.e. the US's ideals are humanistic rather than spiritual; they believe in human endeavour and strength and heroic actions are valued more highly than anything else. This strikes me as particularly Christian and I wonder how compatible this ideal is with Islam (or Buddhism, or Hinduism either).

For now I have to stick with Western ideals because that's all I have ever known and I feel that it's more humanistic and valuable and will encourage the expansion of human knowledge (I am not saying that Islam discourages these things - far from it if you consider Algebra and Astronomy!).

Depression

Reports in the news (link) have indicated that the Hippocampus plays a leading role in some forms of depression. Further to this, exercise and movement can also help people feel less depressed. It's suggested that the reason for this is that the exercise itself is the aiding mechanism.

The Hippocampus is the centre in the brain mostly responsible for spatial navigation (link) which leads me to think that the depression/exercise balance is actually more of a depression/spatial awareness balance!

It would make some sense to me for there to be a biological imperative to keep our spatial awareness and knowledge of our surroundings up to scratch and hence any imbalance to this could lead to depresssion and cerebral problems.

It's an interesting thought anyway. I suppose I'd better go for a walk now ....

Logic, healthcare and gated communities part 1

Question 1: Is Evolution by Natural Selection a correct description for Nature?
Answer: No
Result: I probably can't get through to you so stop reading right now.

Answer: Yes
Result: Go to question 2

Question 2: Does Evolution by Natural Selection describe the survival of the fittest?
Answer: No
Result: Go read evolution

Answer: Yes
Result: Go to question 3

Question 3: Is perturbing the survival of the fittest against evolution and therefore against Nature?
Answer No:
Result: What you talkin' about, Willis?

Answer: Yes
Result: Go to question 4

Question 4: Is allowing the weakest in society to gain from the strongest a perturbation of the fittest (e.g. deliberately feeding the weakest over the strongest)?
Answer: No
Result: Don't want no more jibber jabber

Answer: Yes
Result: You believe that giving to the poor is unnatural


This is perhaps a little harsh because there are other factors that need to be considered and this is obviously grossly simplified. Are civilisation and charity a part of natural selection? By making our society better by sharing out resources to the weaker members are the fittest altruistically helping themselves and thereby fitting in with evolutionary theory by creating as better society for their descendants? Quite possibly in my view.

It would certainly be extremely right-wing and bordering on fascist or naziist to start to examine society and try to "help along" evolution by cutting off support for our weaker members (by weaker I don't just mean obvious examples like people with disabilities or lack of certain kinds of intelligence, it could also mean members who have genetic "faults", e.g. disposition towards violence etc).

In no way would I condone a change to the way society helps the needy (except for increasing it, in my opinion), however there is sometimes in the UK, perhaps inevitably, and running throughout all walks of life, an anti-fittest attitude. For example, it's common to knock those who are better at something; I remember distinctly feeling embarrassed about my intelligence at school and learnt to feel that to not care and to "dumb oneself down" (albeit superficially) was preferable to enable getting on with people; being labeled a swot (not that I was). It's not a well-known part of our culture, but I think it's definitely there in contrast to many other countries.

This was brought to my mind by recent news on the American health care crisis. About one fifth of Americans have either no health care or limited cover. This is an astonishing number and makes one wonder how this can come about. The thing that struck me is that there must be a pervading selfishness amongst many who have sufficient care that enables them to ignore the fact that a large proportion of their own society are so poor.

It then struck me that it's not a real selfishness, but of a feeling of survival of the fittest. America was founded on a sort of free-for-all society where the strongest did best. I think this attitude still prevails today to a certain extent, especially amongst Republicans, and it seems easy for them to look down their noses at the less well off because they think that they deserve it. This is not selfishness, but a specific decision to prejudge. More evidence of this is the increasing fracturisation in American society into those who have and those who have not. Gated communities are growing faster than ever and are most often desirable not for what's inside the gates, but what's outside the gates (e.g. the lower classes). The lower classes, for whatever reason, including, on occasion, their own ineptitude, have been denied some of the benefits and opportunities that the other tranches of society have profitted from. This places them on an uphill struggle made worse when others look down on them and hinder their progress.

In any event, whether the UK values its fittest or not or whether the US values its weakest or not, it can be argued that in the US and the UK there is a growing amoral sub-class with too few prospects and it's a fear of this that gated communities seek to benefit from (and they do).

The governments are just hiding from these facts. Crime is increasing and society is becoming increasingly fractured. No-one seems to be stating the obvious, honest reasons for any of this (I have certainly not heard it if they have).

I imagine the US will sort their healthcare out (when the Democrats assume Executive power), but it will certainly be a hot potato! I can't see what will happen in the UK. Supposedly we already have a left-wing government, but they don't seem too keen to address the problems of either the high crime rate or the issues causing them. I guess we'll have to wait for a right-wing government to clamp down harder on crime. In the meantime I'll be looking for a nice gated community somewhere (seriously).


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/31/do3101.xml
http://www.international.ucla.edu/article.asp?parentid=4664
http://dovbear.blogspot.com/2006/05/argument-wanted-universal-health-care.html

DNA

Q: Why are redneck murders so hard to solve?

I honestly don't know what the fuss is about (see this link). It seems obvious to me that we should have everyone's DNA on record so that in the event of a crime being unsolved the police can use this database to pinpoint (with some technical caveats of course) the guilty person.

I have many liberal and free-thinking views, but when it comes to law and order and crime I believe that the most important objective of society is to protect the innocent and punish the guilty. There are many philosophical and moral arguments about how we structure our laws and how society itself breeds criminals, but at the end of the day everyone knows wrong from right (and therefore knows what the law is, especially violent crime) that it's pure arrogance on the behalf of criminals to commit any sort of legal wrong.

The only argument I have heard against keeping innocent people's DNA on record is that it may be used for purposes for which it is not designed or authorised, but I would say that is a different issue and there should be legal, unbreakable rules governing the use of sensitive data like this which must make it impossible to use this data for anything else.

I would also be happy to hive the innocent DNA into a separate database so that it is only used for unsolved crimes and the guilty DNA is searched first (purely a technicality, but there has to be some sort of way to sell this better to the idiots in society who, perversely, have a vote).

In my opinion our DNA should be stored from birth. There are probably scientific benefits which we haven't seen yet to having this material available. In the future it will almost certainly be possible to clone a human from DNA samples. I believe that in the future our morals and sensibilities will change too which will allow us to consider cloning a dead relative for example. This may seem abhorrent now to some (not to me), but at some point this sort of thing will be quite normal. There are surely many other benefits from recreating sperm or eggs when infertility strikes prematurely to growing organs for transplant.

So why prevent our DNA from being on record? It seems that there are people who just want to hide from society. They're very happy to have the trappings of a modern, successful civilisation (bananas, TV, electricity etc), but they're not willing to pay the inevitable price for this: to be part of a society properly where everyone works together to prevent others from harming the group. People talk about Big Brother, but this isn't necessarily a bad thing. As long as there are foolproof checks against data being used wrongly then what's wrong with having a Big Brother watching out for us all. Anything that prevents crime gets my vote.

A: The DNA is all the same and There are no dental record

Taxonomi

Being a geeky sort of database guy I come across problems involving data and information all the time. A classic example is the classification of objects or entities in order to store, search and manuipulate them. Relational Databases are very good at doing this, however they need to be used correctly. In order to use them correctly it's often necessary to categorise every entity with a unique number.
I mentioned to the wife a year or so ago about how it would be helpful to have a global categorisation for every object or entity on the planet (think of an object as a type of thing, like toilet seat or laptop or diamond). This would make our lives so much more easy if every kind of thing had a unique reference number. For example if you knew that you wanted a specific thing like a bracket to attach a toilet seat to the porcelain base unit and you were able to search through a catalogue, then you could pinpoint the reference number and take it with you to the local shop and purchase with ease the item you need instead of having to grapple with technical details with the local expert in the shop.

I was reminded of this idea by an article today. It only touches on the idea, but the fact that it is being mentioned at all has made me think about my idea again.

If there was a website that acted as a search facility and entity registration portal then I think that would be a good start. The amount of work involved in getting something like this to a usable point is huge and I really don't think it'll every come to anything, but it's certainly worth thinking about and for the sake of a simple website and some research I might just try it out .... The growth pattern for this project would be exponential (or certainly slow initial growth followed by huge later increases).


By the way: if anyone knows of a service already like this please let me know

Energy

The world is heating up and it's due to human consumption. That's the theory, but I am yet to be 100% convinced that it's not just "natural" fluctuation. There is certainly a lot of hot air (;-}) spouted about the subject and it's becoming a multi-billion dollar industry to manage the "crisis".
One of the chief arguments that bloated Americans (for example) give for their use of energy is that there's nothing to worry about since most inventions and discovery come from adversity and if we need a way to cool the planet then science and technology will provide it. You certainly can't deny that so much is invented in times of stress and need, but it's a risky premise, isn't it?

Apparently not. It would appear that we have no problems: our planet is teeming with free energy (we're all made out of the stuff anyway, aren't we?!) if this link is anything to go by. Also take a look at this!

I don't exactly think our worries are over, but it just doesn't make sense to me to panic about this since there's so much energy out there for the taking (long term affects aside: the planet is not a closed energy system and therefore we need to be thinking in global energy/entropy terms about our wind and solar panel farms).

What worries me more is that bureaucracy and inertia will hamper developing the multitude of techniques available (here's another one: link). It seems much more likely that we will be wiped out not from being too hot, but from being too lazy, stupid and officious.

I'm still going to recycle as much as I can, but I will continue to use energy as I have done (which already includes turning off lights etc). It can't hurt to be more aware of one's energy footprint.

Pigs might fly

Whilst I appreciate that I'm becoming more and more middle-aged and the trappings of middle age are becoming me more and more, specifically issues relating to law and order and society in general I have to protest, yet again, to my blog about the state of the legal system in the UK at the moment. Perhaps I am missing something and perhaps the press are misrepresenting the truth, but since this seems to happen with worrying and increasing frequency (see previous post) I have to think that it is really happening and our society is going mad! I remember my parents railing against similar injustices so perhaps it's just "my time" and there is no greater incidence of crazy sentencing or judgements than previously, but for God's sake (!), what is this about: link !!!
I have nothing at all against drinking and smoking and in fact I have nothing against any substance at all if used with care, but to drink 2 bottles of wine and smoke a shit-load of pot whilst looking after a child is, in my opinion, a criminal offence worthy of 12 months in gaol. This woman (whilst not deserving of that title) almost certainly deserves 10 years in gaol.
I guess I'm not privy to the information that the jury is privy to, but I cannot understand (my bad, of course) why a jury found her not guilty. What part of "imbibing oneself to semi-consciousness and allowing a dog to kill a child" did they not understand!
I can only imagine that the law has become so back-footed that it has to be outrageously obvious for any conviction to occur.

I have recently seen an interesting article which I balked at at first, but upon reflection began to believe it (if only partially): link.
I think another consequence of heading towards one's middle age is becoming more conservative. I have mentioned in this blog before about the rising anti-Islamic feeling in the West and how it's not necessarily a racist issue, but more one of respectfulness. This recent article reminded me of that and also made me think that perhaps it is right to react against change when it is only for people who seem to keep on taking without end. This is in no way a racist outburst. I feel strongly that we need immigration, but only with full integration. I don't think that many immigrants feel that way; it seems that immigration is fine, but integration is not. Of course it's not an easy issue and the incumbent population are more to blame than the immigrating one.

The onus is on the West to stand up for what it believes in. This is what George Bush Jnr et al think they have done, but they have done it in an underhand and calculated way. There has to be an honest and open discussion of what our values are in the West and once we can agree on that we have to stick to them.

.... and then pigs will truly fly ....

Murder

This is murder: link.

How anyone in their right mind can think that 1 year in prison is enough punishment is completely beyond me.

We have just returned from France, and whilst I don't have details of the French legal system and sentencing I get the feeling that they are more right-minded than the Brits who let people literally get away with murder.

This is an embarrasing and gut-wrenching disgrace that makes me want to leave this country for good.

Having us on!

That darn Stevie Wonder!! I saw this today and realised that he's been having us all on. He simply must be sighted else how could he do this?!! link

Haven't they got anything better to do ....

I wish I was 70 years old right now.

According to the BBC (link) not only are the aged community having tonnes of red hot, steamy sex, but they are on the Internet more than anyone else too! ("more than any other age group" according to the BBC again (link))
What I really mean is that I wish I had their free time and access to top totty and gigabits of bandwidth.
On the face of it I would assume that all this surfing is for crazy porn, but I suspect it's more likely to be gardening (naked of course) and pensions.

Just check out the interweb's search engine for the over 50s, however, (www.cranky.com) and you will see that the number 1 search was for... yep that's right: SEX!! The number 2 search was for Ed Sullivan so I'm a little sceptical that a) there isn't just one user of Cranky who looks up sex and Ed Sullivan all day and b) it's not complete rubbish!

BTW, whatever you do, don't look at www.granny.com

Future, schmuture

In the future humans will look back on this period as we look back on the Victorians. I feel that we are on the cusp (within my lifetime I hope) or a major scientific discovery akin to Einstein's Relativity theories which will provide some more answers in tying up the nature of the universe. Our theories don't quite cut it at the moment, but I feel like there's something big lurking under the surface of our current knowledge (a monster!!: link).

To think of one's descendants looking back on our current age with a sort of wistful patronage is slightly disturbing, but no less problematic than our forefathers' image of the future. Their beliefs in their own success and (especially late 19th Century) arrogance in their own knowledge are not too far removed from our current arrogance and beliefs. Science continually thinks it's the best thing since sliced bread, but time and time again (by very nature of the scientific method) is proved wrong when new theories come to light. This is the normal way to conduct science, but I wish that sometimes we would have more creativity and humility in the science I see.

On a slightly different future tip it is my belief that in the future all of humanity will be vegetarian. Exactly when in the future is difficult to predict, but I think that within 200 years or so. If this is the case why not make the effort now and be a bit proactive. My descendants would be proud that I was vegetarian at a relatively early period. When looking for moral guidance I often extrapolate humanity into the future and ask the question how would we do it in 500 years? If I can mimic that behaviour now then that is a truly advanced way to be. Obviously this is based on pure conjecture, but it's fun and, anyway, how else are we supposed to find a moral pathway?! Certainly not based on our history. In spite of the growing ills in society I still think that as we move forward in time we become more enlightened, educated and civilised.
How do I judge what our society will be like in the future? It's tricky, but there are some fundamental things that I think I can count on:
1. Technology will be far more advanced than can be imagined at the moment
2. There will be too many people on the planet
3. We will have harnessed practically endless supplies of energy
4. We will have colonised other worlds
5. Organised religion will have all but disappeared
6. We will have discovered methods to prolong human life well beyond the current limits

I believe that these changes will bring about grand changes in morality, including vegetarianism (if only for practical and health reasons or necessity(link)), but also things like violence and harm to others.

There is a long way to go and probably several wars and terrible events and, of course, this is all a little bit tenuous, but quite plausible. It's also a little bit "Star Trek", but I believe that this will happen within a few hundred years. Else as a species we are doomed!

... and it's not just me: link

I love slavery

Not so long ago approximately ten million Africans were captured and sold (sometimes by fellow Africans) to European traders (link). These people were re-sold and brutally oppressed in a foreign land for money and privelege. The terrible life these people lived was beyond comprehension and can only be viewed as a stain on humanity. Without this shocking period in history, however, we would almost certainly not have Jazz, Blues and therefore Rock and Roll and therefore no Beatles, no Genesis etc etc etc.

Of course I am being flippant. In no way do I condone the slave trade, however by the benefit of hindsight we can say that some good did come out of this event.
It's impossible to say what would have happened to music had slavery never happened. It may well have picked up African influences anyway, but in any event I doubt whether we would have the richness and diversity in music that we have now.

Of course we wouldn't have had James Blunt. Hmmmm ....