Skip to content


November

It’s cold, wet and miserable here, so I thought I’d share a poem which seems to sum things up.

November, by Thomas Hood

No sun–no moon!
No morn–no noon!
No dawn–no dusk–no proper time of day–
No sky–no earthly view–
No distance looking blue–

No road–no street–
No “t’other side the way”–
No end to any Row–
No indications where the Crescents go–

No top to any steeple–
No recognitions of familiar people–
No courtesies for showing ’em–
No knowing ’em!

No mail–no post–
No news from any foreign coast–
No park–no ring–no afternoon gentility–
No company–no nobility–

No warmth, no cheerfulness, no healthful ease,
No comfortable feel in any member–
No shade, no shine, no butterflies, no bees,
No fruits, no flowers, no leaves, no birds,
November!

Roll on December!

Posted in arts.

Tagged with , , .


Stealing words

The English language has a proud tradition of stealing words from other languages and dialects.  It’s this flexibility which has allowed it to become the lingua franca of the modern world.  That said, there are still many experiences which we don’t have a word for in English (including “the limitation of not having a word for something” unless you know different?).

I’ve just been reading ‘The Meaning of Tingo‘ by Adam Jacot de Boinod, which lists a whole host of words and expressions from around the globe which we just can’t express in English.  I’ve only just started it, but I thought I might pass on a few of my favourites so far, which I think we need to adopt immediately:

  • iktsuarpok: To go outside often to see if someone is coming  (Innuit)
  • puniu: The skull of a man who resembles a coconut (Hawaiian)
  • nylentik:  To flick someone with the middle finger on the ear (Indonesian)
  • tsuji-giri:  To try out a new sword on a passer-by (Japanese)
  • nakhur:  A camel which won’t give milk until her nostrils have been tickled (Persian)
  • nglayap:  To wander far from home with no particular purpose (Indonesian)
  • ichigo-ichie:  The practice of treasuring each moment and trying to make it perfect (Japanese)
  • achaplinarse:  To hesitate and then run away in the style of Charlie Chaplin (Spanish, C America)
  • giomlaireachd:  The habit of dropping in at meal times (Scottish Gaelic)

and finally, I guess it has to be

  • Tingo:  To borrow things from a friend’s house one by one until there’s nothing left.

Incidentally, I also notice from his book that 42 in Japanese (shi-ni) means to die.  Is that a rather morbid take on the meaning of life?

Posted in linguistics, reviews.

Tagged with , , , .


The national DNA database

It seems that once again we have cause to thank an appointed, non-democratic body for protecting us from our elected government here in the UK.  I’m referring of course to the House of Lords, which has again stepped into the breach to halt the slow erosion of our rights.

This time they have just voted to impose an amendment to the government’s attempts to maintain a national DNA database containing samples from everyone ever arrested for a recordable offense.  You’ll notice I just said arrested there, not charged or convicted.  If you’re in the wrong place at the wrong time, like 14 year-old Kathryn Lay for example, then your details could be on the database.  If you volunteer your DNA to help with a specific investigation you’ll be on there too and once on, it’s practically impossible to get yourselves removed again.

Some will question why this might be a problem.   Surely if I haven’t committed any crimes then it doesn’t matter, right?  Ignoring that logic like that could be extended to allowing 24 hour surveillance of anything you do, just in case you suddenly did something which might be considered criminal by the government of the day, there are a number of reasons that it’s still not a good idea:

  1. Reliability:  DNA tests, contrary to popular belief, are not 100% reliable.  While tests based on STR comparisons (Short blocks of repeating chemical patterns in the DNA sequence) have theoretical failure rates of around 1 in a billion, this assumes a perfect comparison test being performed.  Errors in sample testing, data entry or the use of partial samples can make those odds much lower.  There have already been cases of mistaken arrests based purely on DNA evidence.  Peter Hamkin for example was arrested in Merseyside for murder, on the basis that his DNA fingerprint was said to be a perfect match for the man who shot Annalisa Vincenti in Tuscany in August 2002.  Never mind that he had an alibi supported by dozens of people and had never even been to Italy, he had to be guilty because the DNA test said so.  He was eventually released before trial, but other cases might not be spotted so easily.
  2. Discourages future investigation:  Once the police have found a DNA match for a crime scene, there will be a lot of pressure to discontinue further investigations.  DNA matches bring with them an assumption of guilt even if unsupported by any other information.  Anything which brings convictions based potentially on only one piece of evidence is likely to lead to an increased number of innocent people being imprisoned.
  3. Security:  The UK government doesn’t exactly have a great track record of keeping your data safe.  In 2007, 37 million items of personal data went missing.  Still want to trust them with your DNA fingerprint?
  4. Abuse:  While you might completely trust the current UK administration, remember the people in power change regularly and they will have access to the same items of information currently stored (for our safety).  It’s a lot easier to frame someone for an offense if you can fake a DNA match.  You also need to assume that the database will be used for means other than you might initially imagine.  The RIPA legislation, introduced to allow the monitoring of terrorist communications, has subsequently been used by local councils to snoop on their residents for a wide range of other things, including littering and faking their address to get into a local school.  What’s to stop a national DNA database being abused in a similar way?
  5. Privacy:  Some people will say that this is less important, but I like to feel as citizens in any country, we have a right to privacy.  If I choose not to inform the government of everything that I do, or allow them to track or monitor me during my day-to-day life, then providing that I am not doing anything to harm anyone else and behaving in a sensible manner within the society in which I live, then I should be allowed to do so.  Asking for privacy shouldn’t come with an assumption of guilt.

We already in the UK have the largest DNA database in the world, a rather dubious distinction I would suggest.  Let’s hope that the government head the Lord’s advice and, as a minimum, make provision for people unconvicted of any crime to get removed from it.

Posted in news, politics.

Tagged with , , .


Remember, remember the 5th of November…

As I write this, voting is underway in the US presidential election. The results, barring electoral fraud investigations and any other underhand shenanigans, should be known tomorrow, the 5th of November.

November the 5th, as you probably know, is more famous in the UK as the anniversary of the Gunpowder Plot, an attempt in 1605 by a group of Catholic conspirators to remove King James from the throne of England and get rid of his government at the same time, by blowing them all up during the state opening of parliament. James, the incumbent of the time if you like, was referred to as ‘the wisest fool in Christendom’. I’ll leave you to make your own comparisons with the current US equivalent.

The attempt ultimately failed, and Guy Fawkes, one of the conspirators caught in the act in the basement of parliament surrounded by barrels of explosive, is ritually burnt every year on the 5th, along with lots of fireworks and sparklers. The actual plot was led by Robert Catesby, who seems to have escaped the rather dubious fame achieved by Guy.  The rest of the conspirators were captured after deciding to dry out their gunpowder by the fire to dry during their last stand at Holbeche House, a less than stellar plan.

In the aftermath the local security services took the opportunity to clamp down hard on any future terrorist acts, imprisoning many Catholics (and probably people they just didn’t like the look of).

Hopefully a change of governance in the USA will pass off in a more peaceable fashion, with as little gunpower, treason and plot as can be maintained within a modern political system.  Enjoy bonfire night!

Posted in news, politics.

Tagged with , .


Neil Gaiman’s ‘Man in Washington’

I went to a Neil Gaiman reading of his new book, ‘The Graveyard Book‘ on Friday, which was an excellent evening with him reading a chapter from the book and then taking questions.  It was interesting however to hear his views on the upcoming US election.

He was careful not to ally himself with either camp, pointing out that he doesn’t have a vote anyway (he has retained his British citizenship in case the Queen found out he’d moved..), but he did tell us all about his ‘man in Washington’.  Apparently he has worked quite closely with John McCain and pointed out that while he’s a nice guy he doesn’t know how to run his office and he’d be worried if he was going to run the country in the same way.

I don’t know, does the US need a big picture guy right now, or someone who is good at the details?  It sounds like John McCain certainly isn’t the latter.

Posted in politics.

Tagged with , , .


Shouldn’t you just let the smart guys pick?

Scott Adams once hypothesized that even if all of the smartest people in a country agreed on the best political candidate to be in power following an election, their views would be drowned out by all the people picking a candidate on the basis of who has the best hair, demonstrating a fundamental problem with democratic systems.  Fortunately, that situation doesn’t occur, because all the smart people generally are as confused as the rest of us.

However, I read an article this morning headlined “Looked like he racked up the smart-guy vote”, pointing out that 76 American Nobel Laureates in Science have just endorsed Obama’s campaign to become predident of the USA.  However, if you read the letter itself, they are clearly just voting in their own perceived self-interest:

we support the measures he plans to take – through new initiatives in education and training, expanded research funding, an unbiased process for obtaining scientific advice, and an appropriate balance of basic and applied research

In other words, we think he’ll give us more money and listen to our opinions more.  Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing, but they are expecting their views to be given more weight because they are Nobel prize winners and therefore smart cookies.  Would we react the same way if 98 electricians had come out in favour of McCain because he has promised to force everyone to rewire their houses?  (he hasn’t by the way, as far as I know!, it’s just an example).

Unfortunately, even if you could persuade them not to just act in their own self-interest, I don’t know what information they would use to make a rational decision anyway.  From the media coverage I have seen of the US election, all I have learnt is that Barack Obama pals around with terrorists, John McCain hates planeteria, Sarah Palin doesn’t know much about anything, but is a hockey mom so that’s ok and Joe Biden likes guns.  Oh, and there’s some guy called Joe who doesn’t have a plumbing licence.

If you can make a rational decision about who is going to be best to lead your country from that then you’re a better man than me.  Fortunately (or unfortunately?) living in the UK I don’t have to.

Posted in media, news.

Tagged with , , .


Golden age of television?

I was listening to a discussion show on the radio this morning and the suggestion was put forward that we are currently living in a new golden age for television.  I suspect that we’re all used to thinking that the time of our childhoods was the real golden age of TV, no matter how old we are and so the suggestion was easy to initially reject as preposperous.  After all, whenever I turn on the TV I am greeted with reality TV, terrible talk-shows, magazine soundbite discussions masquerading as news and the ever present danger of Anne Robinson.  However, the point was made that we need to think about television differently to how we’re used to watching.

In the past, there was a small collection of channels making it a very passive medium.  You switched on, picked your channel and then just sat down and watched.  You had a limited choice for channel surfing, maybe 3 or 4 options, and by and large, everyone watched the same programmes which were then discussed at length the following day.  24 hour broadcasting wasn’t the norm and a few big budget programmes fought for our attention, but were easily found.  On the other hand, many programmes which might find a niche today wouldn’t have been made at all, given the scarcity of the broadcasting space available.

Things have changed however, and watching TV like that today could be compared to visiting a library and reading every book one after the other, without any attempt to pick and choose.  There’s a lot of terrible TV out there which never would have made our screens in the past, but there is also lots of great TV which wouldn’t have reached a large enough audience in the past to be made which can now be seen.

Of course, with all the extra choice it’s easy to lose track of the diamonds in the rough, but they are still there.  We just need to hunt them out.

What do you think?  Was TV better twenty years ago?  What shows should we be watching now which we might have missed?  Leave a comment and discuss it!

Posted in media.

Tagged with .


I wonder if there are human conspiracy pages on the rhino internet?

I’ve just been watching Stephen Fry in Africa following the efforts of the local wildlife preservation teams managing rhino stocks in the various national parks.

Rhinos apparently stop breeding if there are too many of them in a small area, so some are being moved to a different park to help continue to build up the numbers, which seems like an excellent idea, but for the individuals it must move them into the rhino equivalent of alien abductees.

“So, you’d just gone out for a quick rampage across the savanna then there was this large flying thing which chased you down hovered above you? Ok, sir, I’m writing it all down”

“Yes, that’s right. Then I felt a sudden bite and I couldn’t move. I was surrounded by long squashy alien things who cut a notch out of my ear and *shudder* I think they probed me anally. Next thing I know I was in a box and them dumped me miles away!”

“How unpleasant for you sir. Now, you’re sure that you hadn’t been drinking at all that night?”

“No! It’s all true! I have a feeling they implanted something in my horn too!”

“Yes, of course they did sir. We’ll be sure to make a full investigation…”

Posted in media.

Tagged with , , .


Chris Morris meets British jihadis

Those of you who know me know that the special status accorded to religious belief (of all faiths) is something of a bugbear of mine and I’m sure it’s a subject I’m sure I’ll return to in the future. The current paranoia about anything connected with Islam is also incredibly annoying and unfathomable to me. (How can you stop the release of a computer game because it’s soundtrack contains a quote from the Qu’ran for example, have we gone mad?) But I digress.

Chris Morris, the king of UK satirists, a while back announced that he wanted to make a comedy poking fun at Jihadi terrorism. Anyone who has seen any Brass Eye episodes, which tackled other ‘media sensitive’ subjects such as paedophilia will recognize that the subject fits right into his field of expertise, both in the subject itself, and the media’s hysterical approach to it so the announcement wasn’t a particular surprise. What also isn’t a surprise sadly is it seems that the mainstream TV channels don’t want to touch it, so he’s making it into an independent film instead.

The really interesting bit is they’re looking for donations with the promise of a chance to appear in the film itself. You can email fundingmentalists {at} warpfilms(.)com or visit their Facebook group for more details.

To quote the producers:

In three years of research, Chris Morris has spoken to terrorism experts, imams, police, secret services and hundreds of Muslims. Even those who have trained and fought jihad report the frequency of farce. At training camps young jihadis argue about honey, cry for their mums, shoot each other’s feet off, chase snakes and get thrown out for smoking. A minute into his martyrdom video, a would-be bomber looks puzzled and says “what was the question again?” On millennium eve, five jihadis set out to ram a US warship. They slipped their boat into the water and carefully stacked it with explosives. It sank.

Terrorist cells have the same group dynamics as stag parties and five a side football teams. There is conflict, friendship, misunderstanding and rivalry. Terrorism is about ideology, but it’s also about berks.
Four Lions is a funny, thrilling fictional story that illuminates modern British jihad with an insight beyond anything else in our culture. It plunges us beyond seeing these young men as unfathomably alien. It undermines the folly of just wishing them away or alienating the entire culture from which they emerge. It understands how terrorism relates to testosterone. It understands jihadis as human beings. And it understands human beings as innately ridiculous. As Spinal Tap understood heavy metal and Dr Strangelove the Cold War, Four Lions understands modern British jihadis.

They’re planning on offering a one-click payment scheme soon. I’ll certainly be watching with interest.

[UPDATE: The film has now premiered at Sundance and there’s a trailer available!]

Posted in entertainment, news.

Tagged with , , , .


I’m selling short on invisible giraffes.

Several people have asked me lately what it is that’s gone wrong with the economy lately, although why they think I should know I have no idea.  According to the news it’s all about bad debts in the mortgage market, with banks giving loans to people who couldn’t afford to repay them and the value of the housing market dropping recently.  However, that seems simplistic to me.

I was reading an article this morning which made me think about how illusionary the whole economic system is.  For most people, myself included, we give up some of our time to someone else in return for a reward, normally represented by money, which we can exchange with other people for things that we want.  That’s about as far as my knowledge of economic systems go, it’s just a more convenient way of transferring our skills between people without having to create huge barter chains where we all exchange services.  Money is basically a promissary note, equivalent to a certain about of stuff, either goods or services.  What form that note takes is immaterial, as long as we all agree that it has value.

However, once you have a physical thing which you’re exchanging with other people in place of something else, then there’s a danger that people mistake the token for the actual goods or services and reason that if you create more tokens, then everyone gets richer.  This is the foundation of the modern day economic system, since any link between money and something physical (like gold) was removed.

This is still fine, as long as everyone retains the belief that the tokens are still worth something real at the end of the day, as as long as the people who make the tokens don’t go made and make too many, then we accept it and everything continues as before.  Of course, if whoever makes the tokens makes too many then they become devalued, inflation kicks in and the economy begins to fail, as is currently happening in Zimbabwe for example.

Now things start to get a bit dangerous.  If you’re not linking your tokens to anything real, then you can start to claim that situations in the future might have value.  For example, I might be a trader in grain with a ship full of corn three weeks out of harbour.  While it’s at sea on the boat, I can’t eat the corn, but in three weeks I’ll have lots of food, so, I can use that grain as capital against someone else giving me some money now, in the knowledge that in three weeks time I’ll be able to give them some grain in exchange.

So now we have embedded the element of risk in the transaction.  If my ship sinks before it gets to port I’ll have nothing and won’t be able to repay my debts.  But, as long as everyone is aware of the risks, then this sort of transaction speeds up commerce and is still basically ok, as long as everyone trusts everyone else.  The insurance industry grew up from traders banding together to average out these risks to make sure that things on the whole worked out smoothly.

With the advent of the stock market, things got a bit more dangerous again.  Shares are just another form of token, but linked to the worth of a company in the stock market.  What that share is worth however doesn’t always depend on how well the company is doing, just how much it’s perceived to be worth in the current marketplace which can depend on any number of things, many of which are completely outside of the company’s control.  Now the risks which might affect my investment aren’t just things which might happen to my stuff directly, like my ship sinking, they could be anything, from someone hearing a rumour that my company is about to go bust, to another completely different company failing and spooking the market.  This reliance on confidence has at least something to do with the current economic problems, but there’s another couple of steps in the chain of illusion to go yet.

Normally, in order to invest in a product or company, you’d buy shares in it in the hope that their value increases.  However, if you think the value of something is going to go down, it’s still possible to attempt to make a profit from a falling price.  You borrow some of the shares in question with an agreement to give them back at a date in the future, then sell them, banking that when the time comes to give them back, you can buy some more at a cheaper price and hence make a profit.  This is known as short selling in the market and can lead to share values being driven downwards as traders try and lower the price of a company in order to increase their profits.  Obviously any situation where someone can profit by reducing the value of a company can lead to problems if it’s done too aggressively but at least there is still something concrete being traded, the share in the company, even if it’s value at the current moment is somewhat less concrete.

The article I mentioned at the beginning of this digression takes this trading element to another level however.  Apparently some organisations have been attempting a short selling based trading position but without actually having the shares to sell in the first place.  This is called naked short selling.  I think that the price of company X is going to decrease, so I sell you 10,000 shares in the company at the current price, even though I don’t actually have 10,000 shares to sell.  When the time comes to deliver those shares, if the price has gone down then I’m ok, I can buy them at the lower price with the money you’ve paid me, deliver them and no-one is the wiser.  However, since I didn’t have the shares at the time I made the initial offer, I’m effectively trying to conjour them out of the air.  I’ve moved from not linking my tokens to anything concrete, to not even having any tokens at all.

Just as if a government tries to print too many ‘money’ tokens, the value of each token decreases, so if someone creates too many ‘share’ tokens it seems to me that the same thing will happen and I suspect that’s what’s been going on.  Of course, the value of the ‘share’ tokens going down benefits me as the short seller, providing that I can buy enough at the lower price to meet my commitments to deliver your shares, but if too many people start doing it and more ‘share’ tokens are conjured into the air than actually exist, then I can’t deliver on my deal and confidence in the market drops even more, which makes the value of even the real tokens drop and you get into a vicious cycle.  Suddenly no-one trusts the value of the tokens anymore, and the system falls to bits.

Governments around the world as I see it are now trying to pump their tokens back into the system as trustworthy agencies whose tokens have real value.  I hope it works.

Incidentally, as I mentioned at the beginning, I know nothing about economics, so if anyone can explain what’s going on to me then I’d appreciate it!

Posted in economics.

Tagged with , , .