Chaos Program

Tonight I watched the pilot of the Battlestar Galactica “prequel” (what language sadist invented that word?) Caprica. It seemed to start a little slow but eventually got going and had some interesting features. In no particular order, here are my thoughts (note: there are spoilers)

The terrorists are teenagers. Historically, it takes a little longer to become radicalized to the point of blowing yourself up. In the real world terrorists are more likely to be college age or older.  However, just as we’ve seen the average age of violent gang members decrease (and the sex of violent offenders widen to include a greater portion of females than used to be the case) in an advanced society where young people have access to sex and death clubs (albeit only as virtual reality) this is certainly possible. It is still different from reality at the current time.

The hedonistic virtual club shown a couple times in there, where bored teenagers (and presumably a lot of older people) went is not possible with current technology. In real life, clubs are not (to the best of my knowledge) this depraved. Close on the sex end maybe, but rarely if ever are there human sacrifices. But when technology makes this sort of thing possible, can anyone doubt they will come into existence? What kind of world will we have when teenager’s avatars lose their virginity before their physical selves do? This may not be more than a decade or two off.
read more »

I learned an interesting lesson at my job today.

Our team recently gained a member who is trained in user experience stuff, actual testing and measuring it, not just eyeballing it like me. During a couple meetings lately, we’ve discussed the language used on the web site. We’ve changed the terminology a couple times during the course of development as we thought of new implications and also as we struggled to describe the technology in ways that people who are new to it can understand. When you’ve been working on a project for a couple years, learning how to talk about it to people who are brand new to it can be a challenge.

What do you mean you don’t understand what a child node is? It’s a node directly linked by a default or alternate path from a parent! (Note: Never end this type of sentence with words like “dummy,” “idiot,” “moron” or anything similar. For some reason it doesn’t go over well.) (See here for a partial explanation of child node)

One result of the changes in terminology is that the web site is inconsistent. Sometimes it uses one term, sometimes an older one that is no longer approved. This might be because we forgot to change it or it might be because someone was writing stuff and forgot that we had changed the term. An attentive reader might be thinking, “Ah! So you learned you should thoroughly edit everything when you make changes, maybe even have copy written by a professional who will be focused on the words and not think of them as a distraction from the real job of hacking code!” This would be wrong. Nice try though.
read more »

If there is meaning in life, then there must also be poetry. Whether you like it or not.

Some of us like it more than others. Many of us were brought up to think of poetry as an inaccessible creature, something belonging to smug self-involved intellectuals who dressed badly and had even poorer social skills than the average computer geek. (Completely unrelated question: Do computer security geeks – like me – count as being more or less geeky than regular computer geeks?)

High school has a way of making people think that way. It turns out that a large part of this may be the result of the way poetry is taught, rather than the poetry itself. It’s just a fact of life that many of us, particularly males (and, according to a survey I read once, political conservatives) are more likely to enjoy Rudyard Kipling than Elizabeth Barrett Browning. Yet English teachers are far more likely to use the second as examples of great poetry than the first. Such is life.

So we learn that poetry is for the elite. Those of us who don’t belong to the elite probably won’t understand the stuff anyway, so why bother?

That sort of disconnect from literary poetry was the subject of a terrific blog post I found the other day at the Poetry and Culture blog about Dashiell Hammett and poetry (here). Since I’m a poet (these days) and Hammett is one of my favorite authors, I had to read it. The post gave several examples of Hammett’s main character expressing less than positive feelings about not just written poetry but the entire idea that there is anything poetic in life.

Well, a hard boiled detective might find life’s poetry to be a bit rough around the edges, wouldn’t he?

read more »

Two unrelated things clicked in my head today as actually being related on a theoretical level. Thing one I spent some time the other day looking over the websites of some potential vendors. I’ve done this sort of thing lots of times before. As per usual, I was unimpressed by the websites themselves (which may or may not say much about the company itself). Thing two: Someone cracked the algorithm for cell phone signal encryption (really a sort of hiding) to the internet. Both these things show the conflict between the old industrial era way of doing things (let’s call it web 0.5) and the newer Twitter-ified way of doing things (web X.0). It tells us a lot about the changing generations and the growing struggles of the information age.

After that slightly pompous lead in, it’s tempting to just stop but I’ll add some detail, starting with the cell phone encryption code, which is a pretty big deal news-wise. The biggest weakness of cell phone security – and it’s a very big weakness – is that, in order to work, cells broadcast their signal in all directions at once. It’s not like the old fashioned landline phones that send their signal down a wire. In order to intercept the signal of one of those old phones, you have to tap the physical wire. In order to intercept a broadcast signal, on the other hand, you just need to be within range with the right equipment.

For a couple decades now, most cell phones have attempted to evade broadcast interception by (somewhat) randomly changing frequency multiple times during every transmission. That way it’s very hard to intercept more than a single tiny portion of the signal, hopefully too tiny a portion to make sense out of the message. The flaw in this scheme is that for the message to be received, the other end (the cell tower) must be able to follow all the frequency hops and put the complete transmission back together. So both ends need to be synchronized. True randomness is impossible.
read more »

If I had a bigger brain, how many more languages would I be able to say, “The check is in the mail” in? Wouldn’t it be nice to be smart enough to answer the important questions (some of them may even be more important than that one)?

The nature of people with big brains has been a favorite science fiction theme for many years. I’ve seen it done in an old episode of Outer Limits and a much newer episode of Farscape, for example. In an excerpt from their book Big Brain, published online in Discover magazine’s December offerings (here) Gary Lynch and Richard Granger come up with some interesting thoughts on this question. I’ll say up front, this was interesting enough reading that I bought the book and really hope it’s not completely obsolete by the time I have a chance to read it (Do you think there might be a flaw in my reading strategy?).

According to a blurb about the book on Discover’s website (here) Lynch is a psychiatrist and Granger a cognitive scientist, which seems to mean they are doing a little more than speculating about the subject. The hook they use to get into it is the skulls of a pre-human species of hominid called Boskop (named for the place the skulls were found). Measurements of the skulls indicate that the brains of the Boskop people were roughly 25% larger than those of modern humans. From this, Lynch and Granger calculate an average IQ for Boskop of 150 which is 50% higher than the human average. But according to the excerpt they’re gone, now. Boskop became extinct maybe 10,000 years ago. We did not.

Were Boskop not as smart as the brain size calculation seems to indicate? Or was intelligence not an important thing 10,000 years ago? Hmmm. 10,000 years ago. Isn’t that about the time the last ice age ended? Maybe their brains overheated as the temperature went up. No, that sounds a little far fetched

Anyway, there are serious flaws in calculating intelligence based on brain size alone. The biggest one is that brain size is only one parameter in intelligence. Whales have bigger brains than humans but are not necessarily smarter. The convolutions in the cerebral cortex make a big difference. Roughly speaking, the more complicated the folding of the cortex, the smarter a species will be. This is why humans are (mostly) smarter than whales. [For a decent discussion of brain size see this article at HowStuffWorks.com]

read more »