Salad Days

Tsk, tsk, good sir. As always, Wikipedia comes to the rescue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salad_days

My usage of it was more along the lines of the heady days, where everything was going great and success was to be found under every rock.

I had no idea the root of that phrase was Shakespeare!

* * *

The "pentominoes" you mentioned immediately brought to mind a toy I remembered from my youth called a "Soma Cube".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soma_cube

It is essentially a 3-D version of the pentominoes. The objective of the Soma Cube was not only to reassemble the cube, but also to reassemble an array of other shapes.

* * *

I'm a member of a motorcycle forum here, and there are two topics that will bring about the most activity:

1. Whether "Loud Pipes Save Lives"
2. Whether it should be required to wear helmets
   

There are some who claim it is an absolute necessity to have super-loud straight pipes so drivers of cars can be warned of a motorcyclist's presence. I think that is nonsense. A good air horn would have the same effect and not be a persistent noise element.

Riding without a helmet is almost a religious thing for some. Arizona has no helmet law, so a lot of people ride without one. Not me. I have a bright white full-face helmet. To me that offers three benefits: protection for my noggin' and face; protection from the blazing sun; people see that big white blob coming down the road, so they're more aware of me and are less likely to pull in front of me.

The pipes thing simple baffles me (pardon the pun). It strikes me as a justification after the fact. Loud pipes came about because they sounded "mean" and "tough." When others began to complain, this "they save lives" argument was cooked up to justify them. It's an uncompelling argument in my mind.

I raise this topic simply because I just posted to the forum asking a very simple question:

Given you have a choice to wear a helmet or not, do you also believe it should be the right of insurance companies, medical providers and government agencies to set consequences for your choice?

The argument I most often see is that wearing a helmet won't save your life in all circumstances, so therefore it's not a guarantee of safety. Okay. But it is equally true that the helmet has benefit in at least some circumstances. That, it seems to me, is an premise that can't be refuted. It does not necessarily follow that "if some benefit, therefore must wear helmet." But it seems to me perfectly within reason for an insurance company to say, "You can save X% on your premiums if you wear a helmet," or "If you sustain the following types of injuries in a motorcycle accident and you weren't wearing a helmet at the time, we maintain the right not to cover your claim."

I expect some fireworks over my post. I expect some to rail at the notion that their decisions have consequences. They won't frame their argument like that, of course.

* * *

Three all-time top books (in no particular order), at this point in time. My list might change depending on my mood at the time.

1. Freedom -- William Safire; a historical novel about the political intrigue that surrounded Abraham Lincoln. I've read this book only twice, but I found it to be an utterly fascinating portrayal of Lincoln; from the perspective of crafty politician.
   
2. Those Who Love -- Irving Stone; a historical novel about Abigail Adams, the wife of John Adams, the second president of the United States. I've read this book perhaps a half dozen times. I just enjoy it that much.
   
3. The Ascent of Science -- Brian Silver; a discussion of the dual role of science and philosophy since the days of Isaac Newton. The book that sent me on my search for God.
   

Spiritual Shapes

"The Salad Days" - I've not heard that before. Does it mean "In the early days"? And is the origin of it rooted in a three course meal where sometimes the starting dish is a salad?

I suspect McNealy was pushed out, the share price of SUNW has been tanked for aeons. Still, he did realise that "the computer is the network" or something like that, before most others. The importance of the internet now to computing in general is tremendous. He is still staying on as Chairman for a while, but this typically doesn't last long - he will be involved in the same way as Lou Gerstner was in IBM between March 2002 (when he stepped down as CEO but stayed on as Chairman) until Decemeber 2002 (when he retired from IBM).

The picture of the ship sailing towards the storm is superb, if only I had the skill to write some words, in persepective, along the top of the ship I would have a lot of fun with it. Still, I have sent it to folks with messages like, "See this is what is in store for system ^%!^%!" unless we get our act together etc :-)

Black Holes as a power source. Oh yes indeed. I read a book by Arthur C. Clarke in 1976 called "Imperial Earth". In Imperial Earth Clarke invents the "Asymptotic Drive" which kept a charged quantum black hole in the drive chamber using magnetic fields. Gas pumped into the chamber is sucked into the black hole which in turn emits photons which excite the remaining gas. The gas molecules fly out the drive outlet making a very efficient reaction drive. Since then the idea had been made obsolete due to Hawking's work on black hole evaporation, the hole would have evaporated :-( But I'm not so sure, maybe there is a way to keep it stable?

The book was also interesting as it introduced pentominoes to me (I think that Clarke called them polyominoes). They are based upon the twelve possible combinations of five equal squares. Therefore the total area of all the pentominos together is sixty squares. It follows that these sixty squares might possibly be arranged in the shape of a rectangle. Experimentation proves this to be the case. It is possible to make four types of rectangle: 6 x 10, 5 x 12, 4 x 15 and 3 x 20 out of the pentominos.

There are three examples of a 6 x 10 solution shown above.

There are 2,399 such 6x10 solutions. There are only two 3x20 solutions, and once you get one of the 3x20 solutions then you immediately see the other. I remember cutting cardboard up into the 12 pentominoe shapes to try it, finding the 3x20 solutions is insanely difficult. I'm going to give it to my daughter at some point (in about five years).

L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology, said that this problem was very important as it tested something called "visio recall", the ability to see again what one saw once. This ability is very important apparently, because it is the key to spiritual development. Therefore it is the one which the Devil takes out first :-)

Question: What are your 1,2,3 all time top books? (The Bible notwithstanding!)

Black Holes

I took a tape measure to a black hole, so I know this is true:

Washington - Black holes are the most fuel-efficient engines in the universe, the US space agency NASA said Monday.

NASA scientists said the new findings using the agency's Chandra X-Ray Observatory gave insight on how nine black holes generated their huge energy in space.

If a car were as fuel-efficient as these black holes, it would travel more than 1 billion miles (1.6 billion kilometres) on one gallon (3.8 litres) of petrol, said said co-author Christopher Reynolds of the University of Maryland.

Black holes - former stars so massive that even light can't escape them - also are 20 times more efficient than nuclear reactors, the study found.

The scientists said they calculated the size of the galaxies' inner regions to estimate how much 'fuel' - gas in space that is drawn into the black holes - is available.

Then, the observatory's images were used to estimate how much power was developed by the resulting jets of high-energy particles to create huge bubbles, or cavities, in the galaxies' hot gas.

© 2006 dpa - Deutsche Presse-Agentur

Important News Flash

From the Internet ... which we know is inerrant and infallible:

Astronauts cannot belch - there is no gravity to separate liquid from gas in their stomachs.

So there.

Blazing Sun

I wonder ... did McNealy "retire," or was he "pushed out?" Sun is not doing well ... they haven't been for quite some years now. There's no real prospect of them recovering. Linux is eating their lunch at the operating system level; Microsoft is chewing up the low end; and IBM is killing them at the power end. They can't possibly earn enough from licensing Java to make up the difference.

The salad days are over, my friend ... there's a new revolution out there somewhere, and a whole new crop of people will become the new Gates, Allen, et al. In what field will that be? Best guess, I suppose, is genetics or possibly micro-machines.

* * *
I see that Blogger has added an "Upload picture" options ... interesting. I wonder where they store the picture? Let's try this:

Isn't that a fascinating picture? I got that off the web somewhere. The captain of that ship must have known the storm wasn't as ominous as it appeared. I guess.

Sum over histories

In some sense we are like this, although when Richard Feynman came up with the notion of "sum over histories" he was not talking about our personalities.

So yes I do believe that in a very "real" sense we are a product of a) our genetic code and b) our experiences. If we get blown as saplings then we grow up with a resistance to being blown as trees, perhaps this is where your reluctance to trust is rooted? (No pun intended!)

++++

Scott McNealy, 51, has just stepped down as CEO of Sun Microsystems, a company he co-founded in 1982. I feel like I'm getting old. He was one of the "greats" along with Jobs, Wozniack, Gates, Allen, Kahn, Kapor crew, pioneers of the toy computer industry.

I guess for Scott it is "Sun over. History". Sorry I couldn't resist it!

Steppenwolf

That's a band from the late 60's and very early 70's, most famous for "Born to Be Wild" and "Magic Carpet Ride," though they have many other fine songs as well. One of which was a song called "Tenderness," which is brutal in its lyrics but is a great song nevertheless.

* * *
For whatever reason, I have been hindered by a real protective stance when it comes to my own vulnerability. I view being tender towards other as willingly exposing myself to damage. I have learned, sadly, that the extension of trust is often met with a betrayal of that trust. :-(

So I limit my exercise of real tenderness to non-humans. I am good to my wife, and I am perhaps more open to her than anyone, but still I find humans to be potentially risky creatures so I avoid exposing myself. Small furry dogs and cats, on the other hand, see the full measure of my inner tenderness.

My true and abiding problem is that my sense of distrust extends not just to humans but to God himself. Honestly. I can't say I fully trust him, though I am aware that I should, and that of anyone in this existence he is most worthy of my trust. That doesn't help the emotional side of my being much ... it is deeply programmed to distrust on the personal level.

* * *
You wrote:

On reflection you've made quite a leap between sentence one and sentence two. This assumes that God is incapable of making a sinless perfect human that was not an automaton, a sinless perfect human that was not doing simply as it were programmed, a sinless perfect human that gave praise to God from his or her own free will, a sinless perfect human that ... you get the idea. Let me ask you, do you really believe that God is limited in this fashion?

I believe that God is entirely unlimited. I hold the doctrine of God's sovereignty as one of the very cornerstones of the faith. So yes, he could have created a creature with free will and yet was incapable of sin. But he didn't.

Note: Some would offer that Jesus didn't sin. Jesus wasn't created. Jesus was begotten of the Father, which means Jesus was from, or of, the Father. The notion that Jesus was a created being was an early heresy ... but I can't recall what it was called.

You're touching on one of the tougher aspects of the Christian faith to explain -- that is, did God know we would sin, and if so, why does he hold it against us? The answer to the first part of that -- did God know we would sin -- apparently is "yes" because the plan to offer Jesus as the sacrifice for sin was "eternal". It was not, I am to understand, something God cooked up after Adam sinned.

At this point I will offer nothing more. This is along the same lines as the discussion about free will and predestination. I'm simply not smart enough to muster an answer.

What am I to say to this? (That sounds like something Paul would write ... in fact he peppered Romans with lots of those.) God can do anything ... that the Bible makes clear. But for some reason, unknown fully to us, he chose to make us in such a way where we could sin. And further, it appears he made us that way with the full fore-knowledge that we would sin. Why? I have no idea.

That's one of those things I must put on the shelf. Not to ignore it, but to treat it as an established given. God made us, he made us free to sin, we sinned, he knew we would. Now, next question ... what are we to do about it now? Answer? Follow Jesus.

* * *
I liked your reference to Isaiah 48:10. I suspect there is something to the notion of testing as a way of fortifying. You no doubt see this with K. We saw it as children. Coaches often push people slightly beyond their limits to show them it's possible. Military basic training is all about testing and fortifying.

Here's a tidbit for you ... you're no doubt aware of the Biosphere experiment, right? It's here in Arizona ... I rode my bike past it a month or so ago. It's smaller than I imagined. Anyway, one of the things they discovered was that trees that grew in that environment where there was no wind developed with no strength in their trunks. It's as if the structure that provides strength in nature never developed because it never had to. I think I recall reading that they had to install fans to simulate wind so the plants and trees would develop more naturally.

Are we like those trees in Biosphere? If we weren't tested -- or refined as if silver -- would we stand a chance of being the kind of person God saw when he created us as individuals?

Drugstore Cowboy

I would guess that it's because they are probably one of the most expensive, and easily slipped into the pocket, items in the store. Locked up like little iPod nanos. I guess they would be used by the individual and his cronies. They are damned expensive, I've taken to buying mine in bulk now at Costco.

Razor Blades ...

Are one of the few things the local drugstores here keep behind lock and key. I'm not sure I understand what to make of that. Sure, they're expensive ($10/pack minimum). But are those who would steal them stealing them for personal use, or resale? And if resale, who buys razor blades from an individual?

Tenderness

You wrote:

This is nearly impossible for me to do, so hampered am I in the expression of tenderness towards others

Without getting into a psychoanalysis session of Le Bagwell is this really so? I mean I assume you are tender to your good lady wife? Why not to others also, is this a matter of trust perhaps?

++++

Yes when faced with talking to a person who has had a loss I think most folks would try to be empathetic as that is what they would hope for were the situation reversed (... treat others ... etc). Mind you, there is a class of professional analyst that really gets my goat in this area, one was recently exemplified in a scene I saw on a plane on my last trip to New York. The movie was called "Flightplan" I think, and the way the movie depicted a professional analysts treatment of the Jodie Foster chartacter, with such subtle condescension, was really well done.

Note: I am suspicious of "experts" in general, so often they (me?) are "ex" as in "has-been" and "spurts" as in small squirts of water :-)

"There there, it will be alright, how could the world possibly be this way, you are confused .. etc"

++++

After the empathy and you look to see what is going on when really bad things happen to ordinary people then there are a couple of things that spring to mind:

Isaiah 48:10

Behold, I have refined thee, but not with silver; I have chosen thee in the furnace of affliction.

By this we can expect to be tested and "refined". For God to test us in some way and to encourage us to be fit to be chosen, for salvation one assumes.

The other possibility perhaps is that God is cutting off some branch in the family tree that will lead to another Adolf Hitler or something, six generations down the line. When you can see all of time in one go then who knows what you could end up doing?

++++

To me the unsatisfactory thing is that God could have disallowed all this bad stuff. The reason that He did not and does not is a total mystery.

Being omnipotent, He could have designed a Human that was incapable of sinning. The argument you gave against this on Sunday May 8th 2005 was:

I believe God could have created us incapable of sinning. We would be an earth full of automatons, moving about doing simply as we were programmed, offering to God our praise based on our firmware, receiving from God the bounty of his love without real appreciation for what it is or its value.

On reflection you've made quite a leap between sentence one and sentence two. This assumes that God is incapable of making a sinless perfect human that was not an automaton, a sinless perfect human that was not doing simply as it were programmed, a sinless perfect human that gave praise to God from his or her own free will, a sinless perfect human that ... you get the idea. Let me ask you, do you really believe that God is limited in this fashion?

Likewise, do you really believe that God was unaware of exactly what his creation was going to do before He created it? He must have, all part and parcel of omnipotence. What happens is, after all, all in the plan.

I'm not happy limiting God in any way. God created us sinners for a reason, and that reason will always be a mystery to me, in this life anyway.

It's almost as if what we think of as bad is not actually bad -- I can't quite verbalize/visualize it yet.

++++

I'm not trying to be difficult. I am trying to make sense of the world when bad things happen. A previous (Christian) manager (2nd line) of mine said "Imagine the Universe as a perfect vase, and then a crack appears. Sin is this crack that got in and God cries real tears over it". I'm sorry but that does not wash with me - the crack was in God's plan, he's not some limited being whose vase got cracked.

Deeper Mysteries

No sooner do I write that blog response last night and God holds up a mirror for me to see myself as I am. It's amazing how often that happens. But that's just a sign that prayer works ... one of my standard requests is that God never cease convicting my heart of those things he wants me to examine and change. He has no shortage of things to work with. :-)

This morning at Bible Study we were studying the book of 1 John; specifically 1 John 5:1-12. Verse 3 reads:

This is love for God: to obey his commands. And his commands are not burdensome, for everyone born of God overcomes the world. (1 John 5:3, NIV)

Now that is an extremely challenging sentence. I am certain I only barely grasp the basics of what's being said there. But I am certain also that there are some Christians, well advanced in their maturity, for whom that statement makes perfect sense at some deep level.

My point is this: for those of us (me) not nearly so mature in the Christian faith, such a statement as 1 John 5:3 can't be explained -- with any level of satisfaction -- as "Well, it just is ... I just know it." Yet for mature Christians that may very well be exactly how they do understand it ... somewhere deep within them the Spirit has provided the awareness of the truth behind the verse, without going into all the theological underpinnings and supporting connections.

Such it is with the answer behind the "Why do bad things happen to good people question." To one who has suffered a great loss, any answer such as "That's just the way God works," or "It's a mystery" or even my flippant answer of "It's a mystery to us but not to God" are at least unsatisfying; at worst they are deeply offensive and harmful to the Kingdom.

So how should one answer that question?

I'm starting to think that the best way to answer that is not to say any words at all, other than perhaps, "I'm so sorry for your loss." There is a time, I think, when explanations of the faith are not what's called for, but rather a demonstration of the faith. This is nearly impossible for me to do, so hampered am I in the expression of tenderness towards others ... but might not the best response be to be with the person who has lost so much, to sit with them and mourn with them and simply provide love and support?

In time the stricken person may reflect upon the occasion and think how caring the Christian was at that time. An unknown array of good may then come of it ... all by the hand of God. That of course is the deep mystery. But it's an answer that's best left unsaid, it seems.

Mysteries

So much to respond to:

• The challenge of something unsolved -- I see your point regarding chasing after answers to mysteries that confront us. And I know what it's like to losing at something and feel inferior. But it doesn't necessarily follow that all mysteries should be pursued. But if it gives people some sense of adventure to chase after puffy clouds they'll never catch, then have at it. The mystery of the origin of the universe will never, ever, ever be solved by us. We can conjure up all manner of theories, but they'll remain just that: theories. And I'm perfectly alright with that ... provided they don't magically become fact simply because Time Magazine says they're fact. What was it I was saying about presuming that premises have been established when in fact they have not?

• The challenge of fundamental tensions at the heart of Christianity -- you bet, there's a bunch of them. The one you site, the classic "Why do bad things happen to good people" question, is one of the hardest to respond to. We want an answer, but it simply is one God has chosen not to give to us in a direct fashion. Our closest answer comes in the book of Job, which is not without its own difficult passages. Wanting to box God in and say he's not in control is immediately satisfying, but ultimately it is not.

The answer to the question is not "It's a mystery," but rather "It's a mystery to us, but not to God Almighty." The Bible over and over against tells us that we are to trust God, not only in what he provides us but also trust that he knows what he's doing and he's in complete control. It's a hard, hard thing to do. But it is the supreme act of our faith -- to trust when we feel we can't.

I don't wish to make light of the tragedy that fell upon the young woman. And I too suffer from a deep distrust of God and a horrible core of unbelief. But I know, deep inside, that my path is not the right path ... that ultimately I must work towards trusting God in all things.

I have had brief glimpses of the peace that can be had when I truly do lay down my distrust and place it all in the Lord's hands. It is a glorious sense of peace. Unfortunately, I grab it right back because I'm a stiff-necked person, like the Israelites were a stiff-necked people in the desert for 40 years.

Your boss's wife is facing a critical test of her faith. Let's pray she finds a way to trust that the God who authored the deep mystery of creation is the same one that is controlling all things now.

• Relative Truth -- I doubt many will explicitely say, "There is no truth; all things are relative." But in their minds they're employing a concept of it when they say things like, "Who are we to judge ..." or "perhaps the terrorists have a reason for what they do." It's there ... it's everywhere. And it's as corrosive a force as there's ever been. I see it every day ... just not explicitely stated.
  

• Beans and toast and a poached egg -- I'll have to try that one day. I'd be sorely tempted to dash hot sauce on it, though. I've taken a fancy of late to cucumber sandwiches ... sliced cucumbers on white bread with a thin layer of "Miracle Whip Salad Dressing", some salt and, if I'm feeling really decadent, a slice of deli cheese. Hmmmm.
  

We look up and wonder

You asked:

Even if we could ... so what? Who really cares?

This is a great question that gets right to the heart of living. There is something in the nature of a human being that when confronted with a mystery wants to solve it. I believe it is the same part of my nature or closely connected to the part of my nature that wants to win. Why do I think that - because we like to win at solving crossword puzzles, or who-dunnit theatre plays or TV shows. If our neighbour solves them before us we feel inferior to them. Like when I lose at chess, I feel that this other person is better at thinking than me. Maybe it is just me but it seems quite common.

If you don't believe me try losing at everything you do, it ends up being unsatisfactory. Winning is a fundamental basic of life on Earth: ie. get one up on your fellow being, get some advantage, do better than your peers, survive to breed, solve a mystery. The desire to succeed, to win, is strong. In some ways it's the opposite of the desire to run away scared, which is also a big driver in our lives.

So in summary I associate solving mysteries with winning and the avoidance of solving mysteries with some kind of fear.

Christianity takes away the need to solve many mysteries, such as Why does the Universe exist? -- but introduces many others. I was having a conversation with my bosses wife the other night, she is a Christian and wanted to know what I thought about God allowing a 17 year old friend of her daughters to be raped and killed. What does one say to that?? The ultimate answer is "it's a mystery" isn't it? She could not accept this, she preferred to take the route that God is limited in some fashion and does not have ultimate control over what is going on. This is the only way she could keep loving God, her God could not have allowed this to happen, therefore he must have been unable to stop it.

Inherent in Christianity is a mystery that I believe we are fundamentally unable to solve, so by my previous rationale this in turn goes against our very natures, goes against the desire to win, and therefore plays on some fear within us.

I think this is the biggest reason people turn away from Christ, this tension.

You also wrote:

They find comfort in there being "no one truth."

I don't know anybody in this camp, almost everyone I have spoken to has strongly resisted the idea of "Truth is Relative" and say how ridiculous the notion is. The time of the idea has yet to come, if at all.

Question: If our world had constant cloud cover and we had never seen the stars, do you think that we would have reached for the sky, or be asking these questions about how the universe works?

You asked:

What the heck is "vacua" -- plural for vacuum?

Sure is !

You never answered my "What kind of beans?" question.

Ooops my apologies, the typical Heinz baked beans tin with a #57 on it! I'm a basic lad.

Top Down Approach

I can't see that phrase "Top Down Approach" and not think of J2EE development, where that phrase means something. I haven't a clue what, but I've heard it used a lot.

You wrote:

They're not quite at "Truth is relative" yet but I have faith that they will get there :-) I recommend that you have a look at the paper as it's the start of grasping the principles of quantum mechanics as applied to the entire Universe.

I tried to wade into that paper but got lost on the term vacua. That stuff is way over my head.

I don't concern myself too much with those who probe the hither regions of "string theory" and other cosmologies. If that's what they like, then great ... but I doubt it'll ever have much direct impact on our lives here. It seems to me an exercise akin to debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin:

1. We can't know, in the real sense of the term know
2. Even if we could ... so what? Who really cares?
   

I realize I'm stepping dangerously close to some areas you are fond of. Like I said, if you enjoy that area of study and thought, then that's great. I just can't grasp it ... not the specifics nor the reason why I should care.

The "Truth is Relative" angle of this is something one embraces to their peril. I'm not speaking of the "truth" of one cosmological history versus another. As I said, fine ... whatever. But as to whether or not there is one immutable anchor point, I will firmly hold to "Yes." I do that not only out of faith in the one God whose name is "I AM," but out of a real sense for the damage it does our beings to think there is not an anchor point.

I think we've had this discussion before -- whether it be true or not, the belief in a God and a sense of accountability in this life was, and is, a regulating force for society. Strip that away and the fabric of our community unravels. The "all Truth is relative" mantra is nothing more than a stripping away of the singularity of God's presence and an unraveling of our society. It takes almost no effort to see the effects of this in our world. Some -- many -- choose not to see it, however. They find comfort in there being "no one truth." Comfort, that is, until someone imposes upon their sense of security ... then we see how there very much is a "truth" in people's hearts and minds.

But I digress ... two questions for you:

1. What the heck is "vacua" -- plural for vacuum?
2. You never answered my "What kind of beans?" question.
   

No boundaries

I agree with you so much in your answers - the hopelessness of immortality is a scary prospect, it's a good job that we'll be busy worshipping God. The parting of The Red Sea is an interesting one, some modern Bibles have changed this to the parting of "The Reed Sea" which is a much smaller streamlike body of water in that area.

You wrote:

And it's not hard to see why. "Of course Y follows from X, you fool!" But not if X hasn't been agreed upon.

You know me, I'm even worse than that. I do not even subscribe to "If X then X" so it's impossible to have any debate with me unless I make an assumption that X does indeed mean X and will always mean X. I have no faith that the Universe is reasonable at all.

Incidentally, it looks like Stephen Hawking has been reading our blog because he is coming around to this way of thinking. He recently (Feb 2006) published a (relatively) easy to read paper with Thomas Hertzog called "Populating the Landscape: A Top Down Approach".

The summary says:

The top down approach we have described leads to a profoundly different view of cosmology, and the relation between cause and effect. Top down cosmology is a framework in which one essentially traces the histories backwards, from a spacelike surface at the present time. The no boundary histories of the universe thus depend on what is being observed, contrary to the usual idea that the universe has a unique, observer independent history. In some sense no boundary initial conditions represent a sum over all possible initial states. This is in sharp contrast with the bottom-up approach, where one assumes there is a single history with a well defined starting point.

They're not quite at "Truth is relative" yet but I have faith that they will get there :-) I recommend that you have a look at the paper as it's the start of grasping the principles of quantum mechanics as applied to the entire Universe.

Food - it's true, I am not very adventurous. I don't like adventure in general ! I'm a stay at home kind of person. Life is just too hard out there for a slug.

Beans and Poached Egg on Toast?

Where's the adventure in that, good man? :-)

Question: what kind of beans? Standard "baked beans," or something else?

At least put some Tabasco hot sauce on it!

Yes, I liked Chip-Butty. I love french fries and white bread and A-1 sauce (HP sauce). Put all three together and you have a dream combination.

Logical Arguments

I've come to sense that we have a growing problem with people simply thinking that premises no longer need to be established. That there is a set of "givens" in the world, and all arguments proceed from there. Unfortunately, there's no agreement on the validity of those givens, and thus debate has devolved into bickering.

And it's not hard to see why. "Of course Y follows from X, you fool!" But not if X hasn't been agreed upon.

But people sense that premises are the building blocks to conclusions, and they won't cede an inch on those. Why crack the door open on a premise -- assume it's true and argue from there.

Note: I first got to thinking about this in the course of thinking about arguing on behalf of the Christian faith. It has long bothered me that Christians point to the Bible and say, "See! It's right there!" What they're doing, of course, is assuming a premise: "The Bible is an established authority." Well, to the listener that premise may not yet be established. In many cases -- thank you Dan Brown and "The Da Vinci Code" -- it is not. (Which is why, incidentally, I believe that work is of the devil in some way ... I'm not saying Brown is possessed or evil, just that his book has done considerable harm to the furtherment of the Kingdom, and therefore Satan's fingerprints are on it. But God will turn it into good, as he always does. :-)

I don't wish to get into a debate about whether the Bible is or is not true, authentic, or to be believed. But from a purely logical point of view, that's what people are doing when they don't first gain agreement on the validity of the Bible as a source for established premises.

Living Forever

You captured the sense of boredom well. I can't improve upon that.

I'll add to it a sense of hopelessness. I think as frightening as death is to us, our enduring sense of hope is tied up in it. Remove the prospect of death and you remove the underpinnings of hope. The thought of it is truly depressing. It's like imaging eternal life with no heaven or hell. I remember long ago being truly frightened by the notion of "waking up" after death and having to spend forever in a coffin. The sense of boredom is there for sure; the sense of hopelessness is crushing.

Another Creature

I've long had this repulsive fascination with slugs or snails. The notion of being a slug and being consciously aware of my being a slimy slug under a rock is something I never want to experience.

Video Camera

Some thoughts on what event captured on video tape would revolutionize this world:

• The birth of Jesus

Only because I suspect it would de-mythologize things quite a bit. We've been taught to think that it was a somehow different birth, when in fact there's nothing in the Bible to cast doubt on it being anything more than a normal human birth. I'm sure the baby Jesus did not have a halo around his head, nor did the manger glow and cast shadows.

The implication of that de-mythologizing could be profound. It wouldn't refute anything about Jesus, his life or what he was or did ... but it would be a pin in the balloon of a lot of people's picture of it.

• Moses parting the Red Sea

This is something everyone has in their minds because of movies. But I think everyone (including me) harbours a bit of doubt about the reality of it. Imagine removing the deniability of it with an impossible-to-falsify recording of the actual event. I think that would make people pause and really think about the existence of God, and the presence of the supernatural.

• Pretty much any one of Jesus' miracles

Two in particular come to mind: his walking on water, and his calming the sea with his command.

Note: in reality, just capturing Jesus on film doing nothing more than talking would be revolutionary. Everyone has an impression in their mind what he looks like and what he sounds like. To reinforce/refute that with tape would be mindboggling.

• The conversion of Paul on the road to Damascus

I'm stuck in a rut on the Christian themes. :-)

• Abraham Lincoln delivering his Gettysburg address

There is a common impression among Americans that the Gettysburg address was delivered in some almost supernatural manner ... but I suspect the truth of it was that Lincoln voice was nasally (I've read that), that the crowd probably wasn't silent, and given how short it was, the import of it was probably lost on many people at the time. The grandeur of that speech was gloss added through time. To burst that bubble by showing the actual event might go a long way to de-mythologize Lincoln.

I could make a similar argument for nearly any of the great men (or women) of the past ... Napolean, Caesar, Alexander the Great, etc.

• The death of Ghengis Khan

Only because it was immortalized by Monty Python. :-)

My answers

If one planet in our solar system, other than Earth, could be made to simply disappear, which would ...

• Have the most profound impact on the structure and mechanics of our system?
• Have the most profound impact on the collective imagination of mankind?
  

Jupiter for sure. Jupiter has more than twice the mass of all the other planets combined and it's stabilizing gravitational influence is probably the reason that we have a Solar System of planets in the first place. It also acts as a giant vacuum cleaner for comets (remember Shoemaker-Levy 9) that are circling the sun, thus protecting the inner planets. If it disappeared it would seriously destable the orbits of all the planets, probably causing the Earth's orbit to shift inwards towards the sun where we would all fry. Before we got pumelled by comets from the Oort cloud that surrounds the sun.

Mars - if the God of war went then there would no more wars right? :-)

What's more common in modern-day debate ...

• Premises stated, but poorly established as true, or
  
• Unstated premises, simply assumed to be true, or
  
• Poorly argued conclusions stemming from premises, or
  
• Conclusions that have no relationship to premises previously asserted?

Common - but then it's not really a debate because one side dismisses the other

Very common - then the debate rages around the assumptions being made

Most common - the debaters agree on the premises but not on what those premises lead to. This is because one party sees more than the other. This is how new scientific theories come out I guess, Einstein found a better conclusion to precession of the orbit of Mercury than Newton, based on the evidence.

Very common - tangential logic. Guilty!

What's your favorite ...

• Meal you'd confess to in the company of business professionals
• Meal you'd confess to me here
  

Beans and poached egg on toast (I'm not proud)
Beans and poached egg on toast

You really liked that chip butty didn't ya !!??

If aliens came to visit us, which would freak out mankind more ...

• Aliens that were fundamentally different from us (think "Horta" on Star Trek)?
• Aliens that were essentially just like us?
  

We'd be freaked out in general. But if they looked like spiders we'd be more freaked. If they looked like anything that is in our instinctual programming to avoid, then we'd be more scared than if not. You make a good point about if they looked like "angels". Then we'd be jealous and probably true to breed with them.

If you were instantly transformed into another living organism -- and was consciously aware with your human awareness that you were that other
organism -- which organism would you LEAST want be? Why?

A fly. They eat turds. I'd rather be an amoeba!

If you had the ability to be immortal, what aspect of immortality -- other than the "Highlander" thing with friends/family dying off -- would be most disturbing?

Boredom first, having done everything that it's possible to do on Earth. Then when the sun goes nova living inside a fireball for a few hundred million years - which would be boring (and potentially painful). Then more boredom when the Universe ends and I'd be living in darkness for ever. zzzzz.

You have a video camera and a time machine ... other than the birth of Jesus, his crucifixion or resurrection or ascension (I'm intentionally ruling out the obvious stuff), what event of history would you want to tape and bring back to modern day?

Kennedy's assasination, was it really Lee Harvey Oswald?
Unsolved murders (to help catch the crooks!)
My father meeting my mother
Einstein saying "At what time does Oxford arrive at this train?" to a train guard
The Ministry of Jesus - his time in the wilderness
The Pyramids being built
The Construction of Stonehenge
Dinosaurs
Life first forming on Earth
The Big Bang (and before)

best of all though

God creating Adam out of dust.

How would modern society be altered if that one event you taped and brought back turned out to be radically different from what people thought it was? Why

Everyone would have to believe in The Bible then, and Genesis in particular. This might make a better world.

Disappearing Planets

Most Influential with respect to Gravitational Mechanics

Note: would I be correct in saying that the gravitational force is the active force when it comes to celestial bodies and their relationship to one another? The magnetic and nuclear forces probably don't ... right?

My guess is that the absence of Jupiter might have the most profound impact ... but I'm not entirely certain of that. It's awfully far out, and I'm not sure what kind of gravitational effect it really has on the inner planets. Would the absence of Jupiter affect the asteroid belt that lies between Mars and Jupiter? I don't know.

Most Influential with respect to Human Imagination

I should have specified that the moon doesn't count. If I counted the moon, adn the moon were to simply disappear, it's absence would impact everyone's sense of the night. The "cold hearted orb, that rules the night" would no more.

Other planets? That's a tough one ... none of the planets appear as anything more than a steady dot of light in the sky, to the unaided eye. The presence or absence of Venus wouldn't be readily noticed by anyone not specifically looking for it. That would be even more true for the outer planets.

I'm wondering if the absence of Mars or Saturn might affect people's imaginations; Mars because it's the one thought most likely to harbour evidence of water and maybe life (not counting Saturn's moons) ... Saturn because of its rings.

But I'll cast my lot with Uranus ... only because that would rob adolescent boys with one of the few sources of pure potty-humor glee that can be had from a science class.

Aliens

I think mankind would be most disturbed to learn that real aliens are something other than those portrayed in any Spielberg movie ... you know, round heads, slanted eyes, long arms. :-)

In some way I think people would find some reassurance that life elsewhere was just like them. There'd be a kinship there. I suspect that's why all the science fiction movies -- except perhaps low budget ones like "Star Trek" on TV where all aliens were human-like but with darker skin -- have aliens that are significantly different: oozing goo, lots of teeth, insect-like.

What would be interesting is if aliens were different, but not grotesque. Radically different, but indescribably beautiful or glorious. In short ... better than us. What would that do?

My Favorite Meal

As reported in professional company

If I had to be concerned about people thinking me weird about my real favorite meal, I'd probably say my favorite is either "Linguine and Red Clam Sauce," or maybe a seafood disk like scallops or salmon. And while I do enjoy both of those, my true love is ...

As reported to you here

Chip-Butty! :-)

Actually, my favorite would be meat loaf and thick steak fries, all covered in a huge pool of ketchup (or catsup, depending on how you prefer that spelled).

I love it!

Questions

If one planet in our solar system, other than Earth, could be made to simply disappear, which would ...

• Have the most profound impact on the structure and mechanics of our system?
• Have the most profound impact on the collective imagination of mankind?
  

What's more common in modern-day debate ...

• Premises stated, but poorly established as true, or
  
• Unstated premises, simply assumed to be true, or
  
• Poorly argued conclusions stemming from premises, or
  
• Conclusions that have no relationship to premises previously asserted?
  

What's your favorite ...

• Meal you'd confess to in the company of business professionals
• Meal you'd confess to me here
  

If aliens came to visit us, which would freak out mankind more ...

• Aliens that were fundamentally different from us (think "Horta" on Star Trek)?
• Aliens that were essentially just like us?
  

If you were instantly transformed into another living organism -- and was consciously aware with your human awareness that you were that other organism -- which organism would you LEAST want be? Why?

If you had the ability to be immortal, what aspect of immortality -- other than the "Highlander" thing with friends/family dying off -- would be most disturbing?

You have a video camera and a time machine ... other than the birth of Jesus, his crucifixion or resurrection or ascension (I'm intentionally ruling out the obvious stuff), what event of history would you want to tape and bring back to modern day?

How would modern society be altered if that one event you taped and brought back turned out to be radically different from what people thought it was? Why?

Accountability

You wrote:

Most people deny that they're fleeing from accountability. But that's what it is.

The most religious of us wash ourselves clean through repentance. Everyone is accountable to God but the clever ones of us hang their (our) sins upon the sky. In the process they (we) lose the guilt of what they (we) have done. "Hey, we're accountable sure but look how happy we are, we've repented and are now filled with the joys of The Holy Spirit."

Let's try and treat others as we would like to be treated ourselves, when we fail to do that, let's apologise, move on, and try to learn from our mistakes and not do it again. People of all religions, even those of no faith, can practise this, sometimes it is hard to do, but it is easy to know what to do.

Religion gone wrong

The details of your last post were just awful. I am reminded that we should never follow a leader without asking our own questions, and of the power of religion as a means of control. Don't forget that these children were not born psychopaths - they were taught to be - and hopefully they can be salvaged.

Please God put the war mongers on both sides in the pit together and if they want to fight then let them.

I had a beautiful afternoon with my daughter in the park, in the playground and on some bouncy castles we found near the old steam train.

On the walk back to the car she blissfully and joyfully rolled down a grassy bank (and got her top all muddy in the process) - she was seemingly without a care in the world. Your snippet reminded me that not all children are so lucky.

Iran

From an article in "The New Republic," which is an opinion journal here in the U.S.

During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan. The trinkets were meant to be inspirational. After Iraq invaded in September 1980, it had quickly become clear that Iran's forces were no match for Saddam Hussein's professional, well-armed military. To compensate for their disadvantage, Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old, to the front lines. There, they marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy, clearing a path with their bodies. Before every mission, one of the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child's neck. It was supposed to open the gates to paradise for them.

At one point, however, the earthly gore became a matter of concern. "In the past," wrote the semi-official Iranian daily Ettelaat as the war raged on, "we had child-volunteers: 14-, 15-, and 16-year-olds. They went into the minefields. Their eyes saw nothing. Their ears heard nothing. And then, a few moments later, one saw clouds of dust. When the dust had settled again, there was nothing more to be seen of them. Somewhere, widely scattered in the landscape, there lay scraps of burnt flesh and pieces of bone." Such scenes would henceforth be avoided, Ettelaat assured its readers. "Before entering the minefields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves."

These children who rolled to their deaths were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini in 1979 and militarized after the war started in order to supplement his beleaguered army.The Basij Mostazafan--or "mobilization of the oppressed"--was essentially a volunteer militia, most of whose members were not yet 18. They went enthusiastically, and by the thousands, to their own destruction. "The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies," one veteran of the Iran-Iraq War recalled in 2002 to the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. "It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander's orders, everyone wanted to be first."

The sacrifice of the Basiji was ghastly. And yet, today, it is a source not of national shame, but of growing pride.

And some wish to "negotiate" with people such as these.

Neil Young and Other Stuff

You wrote and quoted:

Neil Young has just recorded an anti-war protest album: On the title track, he sings: "In the mosques and the doors of the old museum, I take a holy vow, to never kill again, try to remember peace."

Nice sentiment. I'm quite certain the madmen in Tehran and elsewhere would simply laugh at that. They have no intention of taking a "holy vow" to never kill; indeed, they've taken vows to do the exact opposite.

When they develop or acquire their nuclear weapons -- which is inevitable -- they'll not use them initially to destroy cities, but rather to blackmail the world. And the western world has no stomach for confrontation, so it'll capitulate. Europe first, then outward from there.

The threat to our future is not the nuclear weapons, per se, but rather the people behind them. And right now the threat is radical Islam and, by dint of silence, the rest of Islam that refuses to condemn the rogue element within it.

* * *
You're right, most people would vastly prefer an omnipotent God that has no particular individual concern for them. Such concern suggests accountability to the God, which is what our very beings flee from. That is why so many people try to eliminate God from their reality.

Most people deny that they're fleeing from accountability. But that's what it is.

* * *
On or about Easter each year the news shows trot out stories about the "historical Jesus." They're all the same -- they scrub the Gospel of any hint of the supernatural and treat it as merely an account of one man's life.

One news program tagged their program with "Jesus was one of the most powerful men alive." To that I had to laugh. Poor choice of words. If Jesus was God as man, then "one of" is wrong -- Jesus was (and is) the most powerful of all time. He simply chose not to exercise that power in his human form. But, if Jesus was merely a man, then he was clearly not powerful. Influential, perhaps, in his death ... but powerful in life he was not.

Thermonuclear War

Unfortunately this is inevitable.

After the atom was first split for energy in 1938, Albert Einstein wrote a letter to Franklin D. Roosevelt suggesting that atomic power could be a major source of energy in the very near future, adding:

"This new phenomenon would also lead to the construction of bombs, and it is conceivable — though much less certain — that extremely powerful bombs of a new type may thus be constructed. A single bomb of this type, carried by boat and exploded in a port, might very well destroy the whole port together with some of the surrounding territory."

At around 05.30 am on July 16th 1945, J. Robert Oppenheimer, leader of the Manhattan Project, watching the first atomic blast at Alamogordo (incidentally that first bomb they exploded there was code-named "Trinity") in New Mexico is reputed to have said, "I have become death, destroyer of worlds," misquoting the Bhagavad Gita. Interesting that he chose to quote and followed to some extent a Hindu text.

He also said that the physicists who built the atomic bomb had “known sin”; that he himself had blood on his hands. He warned against a postwar nuclear arms race, advocated the international control of atomic weaponry, and, questioned the development of the hydrogen bomb, partly because such a weapon “carries much further than the atomic bomb itself the policy of exterminating civilian populations.”

Scientists make bombs and religious people throw them at eachother - that one is all mine, Google hits are therefore zero :-)

Cry for the children.

Gene Roddenberry's Star Trek is set in a Universe after the nuclear winter on Earth. I do hope that we make it there.

PS. Neil Young has just recorded an anti-war protest album: On the title track, he sings: "In the mosques and the doors of the old museum, I take a holy vow, to never kill again, try to remember peace."

The Da Vinci Code

If you've read one Dan Brown book then you've read 'em all.

I did enjoy the first Dan Brown book I read, which was The Da Vinci Code, then I read two others of his and they were pretty much the same. Furthermore they all appear to have been written with the cinema in mind, you know - the George Lucas screenplay - the exploited trick of three plots all going on at once that all come together at the end. So I don't read Dan Brown books anymore.

Having said that I will sponsor this particular movie as part of it was filmed in my village in the UK (Tom Hanks has looong hair) and I want to see if my house is in it :-)

Ruth Kelly, a UK politician tipped to be Prime Minister one day is a member of the Catholic Sect Opus Dei. I don't agree with many of Ms Kelly's policies towards child education either. I would rather she lived in some other country truth be told. No that's not fair on the other country :-)

PS. I wonder if she wears a cilice?

No concern

Such a God should have no concern with you or me individually.

But he does.

Hmm, that attribute of God is a double-edged sword.

Let's be clear - although our God is a patient God He is not infinitely so. If we don't come to Him within our lifetime on Earth then we are bound to be thrown into Hell.

I am sure many would prefer it if God would indeed have no concern for them whatsoever, so that (following death) they could return to whence they came from. This holds much appeal (I don't have issues with any of the days that this Universe existed before my birth) - but I am told that this is not how things work so I must take note and beware.

The fact that God gave us life so He can choose whatever He wants to do with us rankles with our modern way of thinking of parenthood.

Safer just to buckle down and follow the rules and earnestly try not to sin. Who knows, we might even enjoy a better life for doing so?

Science and Religion

You wrote:

"If you can do this then you will understand that science and Evolution are not a threat to God."

You're right ... just as "The DaVinci Code" movie is not a threat to God, nor is anything of this world a threat to God.

But the inverse is also true: that God is not a threat to science and Evolution. That is a false dichotomy. It's a brilliant move by Satan. It makes one choose when one need not choose.

All of science -- all the marvelous details and mystery of it -- is made even moreso by the awareness of a mighty and sovereign God behind it all.

Such a God should have no concern with you or me individually.

But he does.

Happy Easter. Christ is alive ... and is with you and me.

And your daughter as well.

Jesus has been granted authority over all things.

Large Events

I am deeply troubled of late, brother ... the dark cloud on the horizon has me quite shaken. We face the very real prospect in our lifetime of a limited nuclear exchange. In decades past those who possessed such weapons had a vested interest in survival, which is what kept things at bay. But such is not the case with fanatic Islamicists who feel they must take a role in ushering in the last days. From your own Telegraph comes this.

Today in church we came to the point where we silently confess our sins. It occurred to me the traditional focus of my repentence is on minor things ... there is a much bigger sin of unbelief and distrust in my heart.

Sometimes I wonder if such things aren't placed to force us to confront things we can't directly affect. We are left to tilt at windmills or truly trust that God is in control.

I question my level of trust in the Lord. I really do. It is more than zero, but it is less than 1.

Jesus said: "If you continue in My Word, you are My disciples indeed. And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:31-32, MKJV, emphasis added).

Sometimes I wonder if the freedom he spoke of was a freedom from worry; that "truth" is equated with true trust in God's sovereign rule, and that the freedom he offers is an assurance not just of some crass "insurance policy against hell" (as you so properly put it), but a freedom to know that ultimately we are safe with Christ.

Consequences

It would be very unfortunate were this to be the case. Is it possible??

The alternate theory focuses on the fact that in many animal species, the presence of a strange male is an environmental cue that induces sexual readiness in young females. Hence early menarche may be triggered by the presence of a "strange male" in the household.

http://www.menstruation.com.au/contributors/withoutdad.html

Something about this strikes me as holding water. Or maybe it's just my view of what's right and wrong colouring things? ie. a selection effect?

The article goes on to say:

Dr Ellis says that given the uncertainty about the genetic component it is too early to use these findings as the basis for social policy, but Mr Pershouse warns that they will only add to the angst felt by many separated males regarding daughters who are left behind with their mothers, particularly in households that involve either a new boyfriend or stepfather.

Yep. I guess I'll do what I always do then, bury my head in the sand and ignore it. Anyway, it's Easter.

Evolution

Believing in God is like being a child and in love. You don't know why you are in love and you don't care, you just enjoy it and cherish it and the world outside of this love is there to be explored, not feared.

If you can do this then you will understand that science and Evolution are not a threat to God.

If you can't do this then you are bound to repeat the errors of old.

A cure for cancer (and old age)

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v440/n7086/extref/nature04652-s6.mov

Gary J. Gorbsky, Ph.D., a scientist with the Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation, has found a way to reverse the process of cell division. The video of it happening is at the above link, if you have iTunes installed it will play (as iTunes has a movie player called Quicktime bundled with it).

I don't think he needed an SOA or ESB to do this. You're right, the economics of a country relies on it's ability to grow. So if we stop, we die. Human procreation and Money Lenders (Banks) are to blame to for this. A Bank will give you a certain percentage return on any investments you have with them (it's called "interest" I think). This means that every company has to offer at least a better return than the Bank to get money from investors. So they have to grow.

If the population remained steady, and The Banks did not give interest on investments, then I see no need for inflation and the mad dash for growth that the west has got itself into. Economics only reflects human nature though which is the real root of the problem. People always want more.

My minor surgery is now scheduled for June 6th and I find it quite humourous that the consultant carrying out the procedure is Mr Christmas.

Cycle of Addiction

First, I don't think "batch" is dead ... I think there will always be a need to perform things against a long list of resources. The counter-argument is that this could be done "real time" ... but I suspect we'll always see a need to have certain things done in a contained, accountable, and auditable manner. However, batch is probably diminishing. But it'll never go away. On the day of Judgment there'll be some poor wretch who submits a JCL batch job prior to being cast into the pits of hell for eternity.

* * *
I have a theory about our IT industry. It is that we're caught up in a cycle of addiction from which we can't (or won't) extricate ourselves. This entire industry is dependent on growth and "new things" to sustain its existence. Everyone is frightened to death at the prospect that what we have now may be all we really need for a good while. To step back, pause, would imply a complete collapse of the industry.

Of course, I've been saying that since 1989, so what do I know?

Re-use

Thanks for the Alan Jackson number, a good back-to-basics worship song.

I have to agree with what you are saying about SOA/ESB not giving us anything new. I'm afraid that these are just the latest buzz words in a long history of buzzwords that won't amount to much in the overal scheme of things. Take "on demand" for instance - please. Or even Java, I mean, who cares?

And you thought that you were cynical :-) These days I am thinking that technical jobs are solely in the domain of "young" folk. As I age, I find my interest in IT waning, the trouble potentially is that there will be nothing else to fill the interest gap within me. Then again, that gap is always shrinking as the clockspeed of my brain seems to be reducing. There are longer and longer periods (but still usually in fractions of a second) between my consciousness checking-in with "the reality of this world" - this has the effect of making time appear to pass more quickly for me.

I'm currently on episode 5 of a 7 part documentary series called "The Long Way Around" in which Ewan McGregor (yes - Obi Wan) and Charley Boorman are driving around the world on big BMW bikes. For 115 days (well that is the plan) in 2004 they went from London to New York, East to West (thus the title of the series). It's a very entertaining and well done piece of work. In episode 4 which takes place in Mongolia, Ewan realises that the woman who carries two buckets of water on either end of a stick thrown across her back from the stream to her house is no less happy than the woman who pours water from a tap in London. He is struck that no matter where he goes people are the same, they love their children and they need to eat and sleep. We're all the same but we're screwing up the world says Ewan. The recommendation of this series is probably the best thing my mentor ever did for me!

On re-use, my preacher re-uses The Bible every sunday. Ah but this is not code reuse. Well, if you code any statement, say an "if", you are re-using the code in the compiler/interpreter that turns the "if" into 1's and 0's that the processor can understand, so re-use at that level happens often.

Object oriented programming really introduced the idea of re-use that most programmers think of - the ubiquitous class library. And it's true that languages like Java and C++ make heavy re-use of existing class libraries. This is not of course application code re-use. But as more and more of the application disappears into the middleware, this type of re-use will happen through osmosis.

Shame that the whole programming model needs to change for the massively parallel systems that are coming, led by the cell and perhaps this azul chip. A lot of previously re-used code now has to be thrown away.

In terms of a business writing application code, you're going to see re-use for common routines such as program start, error handling, logging and termination, but there will usually be around (I would guess) 50% or so new code in any program, Web Services or otherwise, that they write.

A question for you .... "is batch processing dead?"

The background is that batch was introduced during a time when processors were slow and expensive. Now they can multiprocess things pretty much immediately, so what is the benefit of the potentially archaic batch window?

ID Cards, Immigration ... Reusable Code

They've bandied about the notion of a national ID card here ... but this country has a strong libertarian streak running through it, and the idea often doesn't get far. But if the objective is to track our movements, then I'm not sure a singular card is necessary. How far are we, really, from being able to cross-reference all the different means of identification we already have? I've got several different credit cards and I'm willing to wager there are programs at work at this very moment that matching up purchases made on one agains the other, looking for patterns or other things that might yield a buck in a clever marketing play.

My lovely bride and I both get scads of catalogs from companies we've never done business with. They've drawn a picture of us based on our other purchases. Apparently I'm into high-end outdoor activities. Ironic, given I'm essentially a lazy bum behind a keyboard.

Two quick points, then on to my other topics:

1. I rarely buy tobacco with a credit card -- I never want an insurance application rejected because of some purchase somewhere.
2. Victoria's Secret (the lingerie people) are relentless -- it's been 10 years since I've bought anything from them, yet I still get catalogs.

* * *
We're having quite a row here about immigration ... specifically, illegal immigration, but that's not what the press is calling it. Some estimates put the number of illegal immigrants at around 12 to 15 million. There is absolutely no rational discussion going on at all ... it's all senseless emotionalism. I think the world as a functioning societal organism has gone past some tipping point.

* * *
Has anyone, to the best of your knowledge, ever conducted a study to see if the promised riches of "reusable code" has been realized? I suspect it has not paid off ... I suspect we have no more productivity than we did before. I'm willing to bet Java programmers end up writing an awful lot of code over and over again.

I got to thinking about this when I was pondering the whole "SOA/ESB" thing. The dream is that there'll be this "any-to-any" bus on which a program can simply request a service and magically have that service performed. But what I suspect will end up happening is that people will have the ability to statically configure the service connection -- using whatever addressing the bus will use -- so that in the end we're no better off than what we are now. The ESB thing is MQ V1.0 with more bells and whistles nobody wants.

Boy, am I cynical.

The Number of The Beast

Rev 13:17

And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

"You may have heard that legislation creating compulsory ID Cards passed a crucial stage in the House of Commons. You may feel that ID cards are not something to worry about, since we already have Photo ID for our Passport and Driving License and an ID Card will be no different to that. What you have not been told is the full scope of this proposed ID Card, and what it will mean to you personally.

The proposed ID Card will be different to any card you now hold. It will be connected to a database called the NIR, (National Identity Register), where all of your personal details will be stored. This will include the unique number that will be issued to you, your fingerprints, a scan of the back of your eye, and your photograph. Your name, address and date of birth will also obviously be stored there.

There will be spaces on this database for your religion, residence status, and many other private and personal facts about you. There is unlimited space for every other detail of your life on the NIR database, which can be expanded by the Government with or without further Acts of Parliament.

By itself, you might think that this register is harmless, but you would be wrong to come to this conclusion. This new card will be used to check your identity against your entry in the register in real time, whenever you present it to 'prove who you are'.

Every place that sells alcohol or cigarettes, every post office, every pharmacy, and every Bank will have an NIR Card Terminal, (very much like the Chip and Pin Readers that are everywhere now) into which your card can be 'swiped' to check your identity. Each time this happens, a record is made at the NIR of the time and place that the Card was presented. This means for example, that there will be a government record of every time you withdraw more than £99 at your branch of NatWest, who now demand ID for these transactions. Every time you have to prove that you are over 18, your card will be swiped, and a record made at the NIR. Restaurants and off licenses will demand that your card is swiped so that each receipt shows that they sold alcohol to someone over 18, and that this was proved by the access to the NIR, indemnifying them from prosecution.

Private businesses are going to be given access to the NIR Database. If you want to apply for a job, you will have to present your card for a swipe. If you want to apply for a London Underground Oyster Card, or a supermarket loyalty card, or a driving license you will have to present your ID Card for a swipe. The same goes for getting a telephone line or a mobile phone or an internet account.

Oyster, DVLA, BT and Nectar (for example) all run very detailed databases of their own. They will be allowed access to the NIR, just as every other business will be. This means that each of these entities will be able to store your unique number in their database, and place all your travel, phone records, driving activities and detailed shopping habits under your unique NIR number.

These databases, which can easily fit on a storage device the size of your hand, will be sold to third parties either legally or illegally.

It will then be possible for a non governmental entity to create a detailed dossier of all your activities.
Certainly, the government will have clandestine access to all of them, meaning that they will have a complete record of all your movements, from how much and when you withdraw from your bank account to what medications you are taking, down to the level of what sort of bread you eat - all accessible via a single unique number in a central database.

This is quite a significant leap from a simple ID Card that shows your name and face.

Most people do not know that this is the true character and scope of the proposed ID Card. Whenever the details of how it will work are explained to them, they quickly change from being ambivalent towards it.

The Government is going to compel you to enter your details into the NIR and to carry this card. If you and your children want to obtain or renew your passports, you will be forced to have your fingerprints taken and your eyes scanned for the NIR, and an ID Card will be issued to you whether you want one or not. If you refuse to be fingerprinted and eye scanned, you will not be able to get a passport. Your ID Card will, just like your passport, not be your property. The Home Secretary will have the right to revoke or suspend your ID at any time, meaning that you will not be able to withdraw money from your Bank Account, for example, or do anything that requires you to present your government issued ID Card.

The arguments that have been put forwarded in favour of ID Cards can be easily disproved. ID Cards will not stop terrorists; every Spaniard has a compulsory ID Card as did the Madrid Bombers. ID Cards will not 'eliminate benefit fraud', which in any case, is small compared to the astronomical cost of this proposal, which will be measured in billions according to the LSE. This scheme exists solely to exert total surveillance and control over the ordinary free British Citizen, and it will line the pockets of the companies that will create the computer systems at the expense of your freedom, privacy and money."

Kitt Peak

Thanks so much for those photographs, I didn't appreciate the fact that you are so close to Kitt Peak. I got into astronomy primarily through receiving a birthday present, a little astronomy book written by the British astronomer Patrick Moore when I was nine or so. Inside he showed pictures of the sun. Pictures taken in hydrogen light by the National Solar Observatory at Kitt Peak, and I've been fascinated with the place ever since.

They wouldn't point the Hubble's ultrasensitive deep space mirror at the sun to do this kind of work, the heat could damage it, so ground based observatories definitely still have their place.

Now I must pack and get on a plane and go to visit your beautiful country. Happy sunday Brother.