Liberal Values

This post by Adam Bosworth is interesting in that I agree with it profoundly, yet believe that the argument he makes is wrong-headed.
I am opposed to unreason and fundamentalism, but not for the reasons he cites.

It is time to speak up. It is time to say that facts are what matter, not faith, that human progress is accomplished through unfettered use of reason and inquiry and tolerance and discussion and debate, not through intolerant and irrational acts of terror or edicts. For all of our children and for the future, speak up against this wave of intolerance and irrationalism washing over the world.

Facts and reason contain no values. They are part of a methodology. What we have here is a war of values, nor methodologies. I believe that the opponents of what I might term "enlightenment values" also use reason and facts. Their values are very different though.

The problem with choosing reason and facts as the grounds on which to fight is twofold. First, they are bloodless, one should fight for what you believe, not for a methodology. Second, its condescending to assume that those with whom you disagree lack reason and an appreciation of facts. Its absolutist in a different way and makes true engagment difficult as the debate must be about values, and these are not stated in Bosworth's case.

In fact the whole article is intolerant of others' beliefs. Its ironic that at one point he says:

I was a history major in college and have loved and read history ever
since. I studied, in particular, the progressive era in history, an era
when the industrial revolution evolved from the grim satanic mills of
England into the modern industrial world.

The phrase "dark satanic mills" comes from William Blake. There's some debate about what Blake's mills were but one meaning is likely that Newton's "reason" had reduced us to cogs in a machine, which makes Bosworth's quotation somewhat ironic.

Official Google Blog: Judging Book Search by its cover

When I first heard of this I was enthusiastic. Project Gutenberg and the Internet Archive have made a great start on making all information universally available, and Google with many many times the resources could do so much more.

Then, the other day I came across an article by Hal Varian in the October 2005 Communications of the ACM (not online I'm afraid) entitled "Universal Access to Information". As well as being a respected Economist, and the author of Information Rules he is a consultant for Google. His argument is that copyright law should be changed to make it easier for companies (such as Google) to copy works whose copyright is unregistered.

I'm broadly sympathetic to this idea, but must admit to a certain suspicion of Google's motives. Why do they not make the full text of works that are out of copyright available? I would have thought that the "free" version should be the first one returned in any search. There are certainly tens of thousands to millions of works that are out of copyright and which, if searchable by Google and having the full text available would make an immensely powerful resource.

Its very disappointing that they are not doing this. My suspicion is because its not worth their while -- they are after richer pickings.

BBC NEWS | Technology | Wikipedia tightens online rules

Looks like a new twist on the tragedy of the commons.

It would seem sufficient to make sure that all authors and editors can be traced. Wikipedia seems to have been a little more clever than this by requiring traceability for authors of new articles, but not for those who edit an existing article.

It is important to allow anonymity, as some people may be under threat for contributing to Wikipedia. There may be an irreconcilable connflict of interests here though, as allowing scurrilous falsehoods and self promotion will devalue Wikipedia. We don't want another UseNet.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Clothes of 1924 head for Everest

BBC NEWS Science/Nature Clothes of 1924 head for Everest:

It turns out that the clothes used 80 years were pretty sophisticated and in some ways, such as freeedom of movement allowed, may have been better. I have a technologist's tendency to believe that newer is better.

Environmental Hysteria

The Independent today Independent Online Edition > Environment claims that

The European Commission report says that if the current rate of growth in air travel is continued, it will result in a 150 per cent increase in emissions from international flights from EU airports by 2012.

Its not credible to claim that emissions will more than double in 5 years, so I have to assume that this unreferenced report is being misrepresented. My guess would be that the claim is for a 150% increase sinece 1990.

The Independent does this all the time. It seems to have intensified sinece they moved to Tabloid format.

Man or Woman, Child or God?

Falkirk to Linlithgow Rail Tunnel

Falkirk to Linlithgow Rail Tunnel
Originally uploaded by timniblett.

The canals from Glasgow to Edinburgh, include this monster which is about 800 meters long, just past Falkirk on the way to Linlithgow.

Apache and Skype

I run Skype (great program). I wanted to install Apache on my local Windows box. I kept getting the error message:

Only one usage of each socket address is normally permitted. :make_sock: could not bind to address 0.0.0.0:80 no listening sockets available, Shutting down.

Unable to open logs.

This stops Apache running and installing itself as a service.

It turns out that Skype is the cause of the problem. It listens to port 80 (by default I guess). Quitting skype wasn't enough, I also had to kill its process manually. The way to do is to kill it from the Windows task manager (Crtl-Alt-Del).

Once Skype is killed you can setup apache as a service via "apache -k install" and it should start before Skype on boot thereafter. Skype can use other ports than the http port, although its still listening for https connections...

Not friendly, although understandable I guess in terms of getting Skype working as widely as possible.

New Housing on the Clyde at Partick

New housing on the Clyde at Partick

Oliver Kamm

I read Oliver Kamm's blog from time to time.

His latest entry, http://oliverkamm.typepad.com/blog/2005/05/right_again.html explains why he thinks Tony Blair was right over Iraq.

The money quote for me is:

Overthrowing Saddam Hussein by force - for there was no other way to topple his regime - was an act of outstanding moral clarity and strategic importance. I pay tribute to the PM for having seen this point so early, and for having it carried it through despite the opposition of many in his party and elsewhere.

He seems to be saying that Tony Blair saw that regime change was necessary and did what it took.

My problem with the "moral clarity" is that Tony Blair sold the war to the public and Parliament by insisting that it wasn't about regime change, but about Saddam's refusal to implement UN Security Council resolutions and/or about a clear and present danger to the security of the UK posed by weapons of mass destruction.

Let's assume that Blair's reason or going to war was as suggested by Oliver Kamm. Surely this should have been publicly debated? The political process is debased when the Prime Minister is not prepared to put a case of such "moral clarity" to the public, presumably because he judged it would be rejected.

Oliver Kamm frequently castigates Noam Chomsky for what he terms sophistry and intellectual dishonesty. His comments on Tony Blair seem to mirror Chomsky's approach to the truth, except that he comes to praise rather than bury. A large part of the case against Tony Blair's approach to Iraq is surely that he didn't have the courage of his convictions (as attributed by Oliver Kamm) but tried to pursue a second rate and bogus rationale for the pursuit of the war, and in the end seems to have discredited any valid case he had for the war.

Chris Lawson's Birthday Party

Chris Lawson
Originally uploaded by timniblett.

We just came back from Chris's birthday bash. It was in Buxton, which is a kind of inland holiday resort (spa). We even tasted the waters.

The lunch on the Saturday was a memorable experience. I hadn't seen some of the people there for 25 years so it was a bit like going to a masked ball where the underlying face was less real than the mask.

Oddly enough, apart from the physical changes, people don't seem to change much with the years, or at least the relationships with them don't.

Thanks Chris! It was a unique experience.