Month: February 2013

As I’ve said many a time, when using Ockham’s razor argument, you need to be careful not to cut your own throat. Here neatly exposed by BoingBoing.

Classic meme case – where a simple stated, oft quoted,  but subtly misunderstood adage becomes accepted (by a vocal majority) and applied as some kind of absolute rule.

Interesting potential development in microprocessor technology. (Hat tip to Rayan on LinkedIn)

Interesting, ideas on the source of “Proto-Indo-European” language (aka Aryan) continue to develop – associated with the spread of peoples and trade communications. (from last year).

A coming together of BHA and Baroness Warsi.

Warsi [said] that while genuine, hateful religious intolerance should be confronted [and] incitement to religious hatred remains an offence in Britain, a blasphemy law once on our statute book was abolished in 2008 — in part because […] it was incompatible with the freedom of speech.

Copson […] said […] “Mere criticism of religion — even though it may always be perceived as offensive or blasphemous by some religious groups and individuals — cannot be automatically prohibited as hateful. Rather, the expression of humanist ideas, atheist and critical ideas per se must be protected.”

Warsi has previously been criticised by humanists and secularists in the UK for endorsing a greater role for Christian and other religious groups in national policy, and describing some forms of secularism as “intolerant and illiberal”. “Freedom of religion or belief applies equally to humanists, atheists and other non-religious people […] emphasis on religion or belief as – in her words – a universal right for all, rather than as a privilege for a majority religion in any given country.

Some forms of secularism are indeed intolerant and illiberal, so the real topic here is balanced freedom of expression. My one point to add here is this – it is criticism per se that is protected as a universal right, not  a right to offend. No offence, but …. has to be seen to be meant sincerely by mutual respect of human individuals.

Another one for the “twas ever thus” and “nothing new under the sun” collection (from Punch 1906, from Mike Loukides via Hugh MacLeod):

(Which reminds me, a long time since I’ve looked at BoingBoing.)

Never seen this effect at this scale before; Von Karman vortices formed in the clouds stretching hundreds of miles beyond two small islands off Chile. Hat tip to Milind on Linked In for sharing the link.

Interesting not least (to a geek like me) because this is an effect that works at small and very small scales too – around towers and chimney stacks, around power distribution cables, around old aircraft struts and wires, even around tiny wires in instruments, where the effect is exploited to measure flow rate. (I often hear it at audible frequencies as the wind blows past the leg of my specs.)

Racial abuse from rival supporters, in fact any kind of tribal “abuse” is a no no for me, even at any competitive sporting event, but Diouf has to be the least likely target to raise any kind of outrage. (Maybe that’s why they’ve chosen him.) Talk about water off a duck’s back – is there any bigger wind-up merchant in the game – got to admire him for it. He and Warnock were made for each other, love ’em both.

Don’t get me wrong. This is not “racist” abuse. It’s abuse, a much bigger problem. Where ignoramuses pick on least popular (most effective) members of the opposing club, and find the most abusive taunts to hurl at them, and that’s always going to attack whatever makes them different, whatever is likely to be most offensive.

I could give plenty of examples – even in the Milwall vs Leeds case there is the Jimmy Savile example. Delivered with wit and originality, there can be valid comedic value in offensive material, but, the but matters. The problem is people believing that “abusive attack intended to cause offense” is valid behaviour full stop. Right from PM’s Questions downwards. This is a much more deep seated problem, I’ve blogged about before – most obviously here.

I remember Julie when she started at the NME – alongside Tony Parsons and Charles Shaar-Murray I seem to recall. You can’t help but notice she’s continued to be a contrarian in her life since, but this Desert Island Discs session is one for the scrapbook. You have to suspend disbelief, and Kirsty does a great job doing that.

Guess I need to check a few facts – became a Christian and is now ex-Christian and studying Judaism …. ? Spike interview from 2005.

My view: He’s no doubt stepping down due to frailty of age. They already have to wheel him about. In days when authority counted for something, the office of Pope could afford to continue until the demise of incumbent body. Pretty sure the Rap Singer sees that his church needs a person of some strength in leadership – in these days where the church needs to respond to anti-authoritarian attacks, and worse.

Sure enough:

“this ministry, due to its essential spiritual nature, must be carried out not only with words and deeds, but no less with prayer and suffering. However, in today’s world, subject to so many rapid changes and shaken by questions of deep relevance for the life of faith, in order to govern the bark of Saint Peter and proclaim the Gospel, both strength of mind and body are necessary”

Big data (*) – power of correlation of patterns without necessary causation, understanding or explanation – makes sense when the data largely reflects human psychology and behaviour. Because the human explanations would involve rationalisations and game-theoretic responses, not objective scientific causation. The what may be useful even before the why is considered. The what may provide pragmatic value, even near-real-time usefulness, whereas the why may ultimately provide new “knowledge”. These are not mutually exclusive.

The word model is overloaded here – all models are wrong, but some are more useful – but “useful for what?” matters. Important to recognise the different kinds of “model” here and how they’re used – statistical patterns and correlations of what happens, to assign odds to predictions (to markets, say) as distinct from models of mechanisms and processes, that represent how the world works (the economy, say) – especially in the latter case where we are trying to decide inputs, apply agency, to achieve valued outcomes.

Newton:
“I can model the stars in the cosmos,
but not the madness of men.”

Humans will respond to the outcomes of such models – it’s a never ending arms-race – where values are at stake. The usual adage about management by measurement distorting the human process.What can be measured crowds-out other values that matter more to humanity.

The sceptics here are Tiffany and Lisa (and me). Lisa even makes the slip of referring to the geeks in maths and economics as “men”. Many a true word.

(Fair bit of discussion about brains, minds and consciousness too … even shared consciousness beyond any given brain … a longer story.)

[(*) And when I use “big-data” here, I’m simply implying a sample size so huge, that it is likely to be statistically significant for any pattern discovered within it, as opposed to a sample gathered with any particular investigation in mind. Like “cloud” it’s rapidly becoming just the latest jargon for the web of information on the internet of technology.]