Thoughts

This is a great video. I love the places that the crowd cheers.

Sparked by an opinion piece by christheblogger, here is an assortment of memories.









More can be found at http://www.youtube.com/user/80scartoons.

Technology of the future.

I'm beginning to understand how scientists can allow themselves to publish flawed work, or to attach themselves to a theory without giving appropriate consideration to the evidence against it.

I'm trying to write up some stuff for a paper. We're trying to argue that we can fix a polynomial of degree d by finding the value at d+1 independent points of one of the variables. The problem is that I'm not sure we have d+1 independent points. We seem to, but I keep on finding problems with some of the equations, and then for one reason or another Jan tells me my worries are unfounded. I've just found another potential problem. I'm really starting to get tired of it. It's become a rollercoaster.

It would be easier on my nerves to just ignore the problems I keep on seeing and fudge it. After all, so far they've turned out to not be problems. Right? right?

Intellectual honesty is exhausting.

The Jacko noise is for you, Chris.

This:
arxiv:0911.3311v1 - pdf
arxiv:0911.3311v1 - abs
just goes to show you should be careful what you publish. You could get a backlash from this guy.

Can you give me a better translation of this:

On the 21st we arrive in Brisbane at 8am, and leave for Gympie at 5pm. Who has the day free and somewhere to stash suitcases for a couple of hours?

I know you guys luurve saying math instead of maths. You want to marry that word. Fine. But what about physic? Do you say that as well? huh? HUH?

I didn't think so.

I have always thought of the expression "I'll eat my hat" as meaning something like "I'll shut up about it", even though I know it's on par with "I'll be a monkey's uncle".

Today I heard it used in a way that made me think the guy might actually eat his hat.

The following links to a review by Norman J. Levitt of "Science: A Four Thousand Year History" by Patricia Fara. Levitt passed away five days ago, which is how I heard of him. He was a mathematician and a science populariser, but what mostly caused me to read his review was the title of it.

From "Science: A Four Hundred Page Hissy-Fit":
Let’s face it: in terms of power and value to a modern industrial state, the natural sciences tower over all other forms of intellectual activity. This is an unhappy fact for humanists to face; some do so gracefully, but, to the surprise of no student of human nature, many find their way into some rationale for disparaging or dismissing science. Nowadays, this resentment is conjoined with a reflexively egalitarian world-view that disdains the idea that some rare individuals are creative or insightful through faculties that we ordinary mortals simply don’t share. Also in play is a more explicitly political doctrine grounded in shame and regret for what western society has inflicted on myriad other cultures in the course of establishing its world-girdling dominion, a process in which science and technology had a crucial role.

This view of science is one I have heard from a number of corners, and it is one I have grappled with. The scientific method does seem to be primarily a western phenomenon, but does that mean that it is biased of westerners to think of it as superior? Did western society bring about the scientific method as their own way of looking at the universe, or was it the scientific method and all the achievements it brought about that caused western society to prosper and 'girdle the world', in Levitt's words?

In my opinion, a bit of prosperity allowed certain thinkers the freedom to step back from their problem and try and view it with an unbiased perspective (ie, a perspective not based on their cultural or religious ideas). Once this method proved fruitful, the society benefited from it and prospered even more. The freedom to disregard the ideas which are ingrained into a society is precisely the freedom needed to do science, and it is precisely the freedom which many non-western societies deny their children. Certainly many western people also deny their children this, but the society as a whole does not. That, I believe, is why western society has prospered, and it is also why the scientific method is in such widespread use.

As to why so many westerners rail against the idea of science being a superior worldview, I can only surmise. Guilt at being part of the prosperous society? A desire not to be seen as bigoted? The grass is greener?

I suppose the main point to make to people who hold this is that science is not closed-minded. It seeks natural explanations, and it takes all possibilities into account. If one seems by far more likely, then that is held as the standard. It's just common sense, really.

mp3 files which I manually label as podcasts go into a special group called 'x' (Note: This is not my doing). Another file which I manually labelled as a podcast went into a special group called '' (Note: I wanted it in the same group as the others). I have found no way to change this, but I guess it's ok.

But when I move it to the ipod, it goes into a completely different podcast which it is definitely not part of, seemingly chosen at random. I had to search to find it.

Fuck you, itunes. Start making sense.

I think the only answer to that is "I don't know"...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022154644.htm, for later reading.

But it's pretty funny:
http://qntm.org/?board

I've heard of this research before, but now there's a nice news article on it.

40 000 generations! Wow. Obviously it's still quite short in terms of the sort of evolution that humans have undergone, but still, enough to see some definite changes.

I've been looking for somewhere to stay for a week in Amsterdam. I found this place. I really want to stay there.

Paris has started to cool down

I've often noticed, especially on the internet, that people's opinions change frequently. On the internet this can sometimes be hard to follow because you may read someone's piece from three months ago and not come across the update to their opinion. I think it would be helpful if there was some database of everyone and the opinions they currently hold. Fully searchable through history, of course, but with some way to make it extremely easy to find out what this person thinks about that issue at this particular moment, so you can argue with their present self, and not their past opinions.

I guess we'll need brains plugged into the internet for that. Fingers crossed.

But this one I couldn't pass up.

I, Rowboat

As it turns out, there are two similar train stations in the south of Paris - Orsay-ville and Orly-ville. There's a difference of train lines, a few ks, and a ticketing zone. I needed to go to Orsay-ville. Guess which one I ended up at.

I didn't figure it out until I noticed the complete lack of a university with the second largest campus in Europe, or so I'm told.

Oh well, it only cost me an extra 2.20, three hours and some dignity. A lesson learned, as they say. I can't remember the rest of it.