mark wants to learn more.

NEW BLOG!

2010-05-22T21:37:00.000-07:00

I have now have another blog! It's a collaborative project with my housemates. It's updated a lot more than this one.
ENJOY!
www.interestingehh.blogspot.com

COLLECT

2010-02-08T04:36:00.000-08:00

"It is perhaps a more fortunate destiny to have a taste for collecting shells than to be born a millionaire." - Robert Louis Stevenson

A CAMPUS COFFEE REVIEW

2010-02-04T22:18:00.001-08:00

Coffee is a hell of a drug. It’s cheap, tasty, and readily available. And if, like me, you’re knocking back at least three cups a day, it paints the whole world with a glorious kind of clarity. I’ve only had one this morning, but already it feels like someone has wiped the sticky finger-prints from the reading glasses of my mind.

I’ve felt like this a lot lately. For a month now, I've been reviewing the UQ Campus coffee shops – partly for the good of general knowledge, but mostly for my own pleasure. The aim was to visit each of seven cafes at least five times, and to review them in some sort of systematic way. (There are, I know, more than seven cafes on campus. Perhaps I’ll review the others another time.)

Now, obviously enough, there is no objective way to review coffee. Should the appearance count? The aroma? What about the ambiance of the café in which it was served or the cheerfulness of the barista who poured it? These things are important. But for my part, I ignored them as best I could, and decided to review only two things: firstly, the taste of the coffee; and secondly, and rather more inexplicably, the way that the coffee made me feel. This second criteria, I grant you, is a bit weird, but I’m quite sure that anyone who isn’t an argumentative prat will know exactly what I mean. I was trying to review the quality of the drug on offer.

As for the grading system that we used: a simple scale from one to ten. This, specifically, is the kind of thing the reviewers were told:

“Order either a Flat White or a Latté. Don’t tell anyone at the table what you think of it. Write down on the provided slip of paper a score between ONE and TEN. 'ONE' is badly made Instant Nescafe; TEN is the coffee they serve in heaven. Try to score such that FIVE would be your mean average if you graded every coffee shop in Brisbane.”

What follows are the results. I hope they're of some use or interest. If we graded your favourite hang-out poorly, I’m sorry. Of course, I don’t pretend to offer anything remotely akin to a definitive final word. Don't be angry. Nil desperandum.

As for me, I'm cutting back to one a day for a while.

GET THIS BOOK.

2009-12-27T23:39:00.000-08:00

A collection of short and fascinating biographies. Turns out my favourite book of the year was a very late entry. Very highly reccomended.

WHY STATIC IS THE BEST PROGRAM ON TELEVISION TONIGHT

2009-10-19T19:52:00.001-07:00

The story of how Penzias and Wilson corroborated the Big Bang is pretty well known, so I’ll keep that bit short:

Whilst working with a radio telescope in New Jersey called the Horn Antenna, the scientists were annoyed that their signal was constantly muddied by the noise of static. Naturally enough, they supposed the static resulted from dirt in the apparatus, so they got up into the Horn and spent hours scrubbing away at what they later called “white dialectric material” (but which was really just pigeon crap).

After hours of elbow grease, however, the static remained. The astronomers were puzzled.

Unbeknownst to them, a team of physicists led by Robert Dicke at nearby Princeton were earnestly searching for the very static that Penzias and Wilson were trying to eliminate. Dicke and Co. were working on the relatively new Big Bang theory, and they had posited that if the theory were indeed correct, then the whole universe ought to be marinated in faint microwaves.

Dicke came to hear of Penzias and Wilson’s discovery, and realized he’d been beaten to the prize (“Well boys, we’ve been scooped!”). Penzias and Wilson won a Nobel Prize for their mistake, and the Big Bang had been startlingly corroborated.

But what I didn’t know until recently was that the sound of static that you and I pick up from a detuned television set is supposed to be partially caused (about 1%) by this very radiation!

Maybe that just sounds ‘neat’. But actually it’s ludicrously mind boggling.

The Big Bang theory predicts that all material objects – galaxies, stars, planets, atoms, plants, animals, Shakespeare, Einstein and your own body– find their origin 13.7 billion years ago in an unthinkably hot and dense collection of material no bigger than a Grapefruit. All material that has ever existed in the universe began in that event. ...Surely this is an idea beyond human comprehension.

And yet, apparently, here I am: a middle-sized lump of flesh and bone, listening to the ancient origins of the corporeal universe on a mysterious little box made by Sony.

HOW TO ENJOY UNIVERSITY

2009-09-15T22:49:00.000-07:00

It seems to me that if you don't enjoy uni, then you must be an awfully bad sort of person. I mean, if you can't find solace basking in the Great Court grasses, surrounded by fresh healthy faces, and learning for a living, then you really ought to seriously consider ending it all right now.

Nonetheless, the fact remains that many of you don't like the university life at all. I hear you bitching on the bus about your meagre tribulations, and I see you skulking up the path with that sour grimace etched across your unthinkable face. And this puzzles me. What is the reason for your mad discontent? Could it be that you simply do not know the joys that university has to offer?

Well, just in case so simple a solution turns out to be the right one, I proffer you here my ten point plan: How to Enjoy University.

1. Spend at Least Two Hours a Week in the Student Bar.

You're busy, I get it. But make time. Stop watching that television show about fat people on treadmills, or that other one about farmers and floozies. Just make the time somehow.

As far as I can tell, you can even take your own lunch to the UQ pub as long as you buy a drink from the bar and don't make a big show about producing the squashed cheese sandwiches from your book bag. So being strapped for cash is no excuse.

And trust me: even if you're sad enough to spend the whole two hours sipping one schooner of Amber Ale and reading a bad Kafka novel all by yourself, life will still be better having done so. But most of you, I'm sure, could persuade at least one person to join you for some stilted conversation or a game of Pool. And unless you and your friend are particularly ugly, you'll probably meet some other decent folk as well.

Personally, I recommend that you pick a regular time to go each week. That way you'll develop the warm 'local' feeling without having to put in Bar-Fly hours. Trivia and Karaoke are good choices.

2. Listen to University Radio While You Study

I only just discovered that this exists. But I like it. It's actually called JACradio (search for it on the intertubes, it's easy to find.) No doubt you won't like every show – they are quite diverse. But chances are you'll like some of them. And in any case, listening to local radio makes you feel connected, and that might just keep those lonely study blues at bay.

3. Study Things You Don't Have To

Seriously, stop being such a jerk. Learn some things. Buy a real newspaper, dabble in philosophy, and watch some 60's French Cinema. Or if that's not your bag, I don't care, learn about something else – anything. But if all you do at uni is study your own little Major and visit tacky Valley nightclubs then don't be surprised if uni bores you. It bores you for the reason that you are boring.

4. Feed the Ducks

Perhaps bread isn’t good for ducks. I’m not sure. In that case be certain to feed them something nutritious. Or perhaps it’s bad to feed ducks at all. In that case just sit there and admire them. But either way, spend some time down by the lakes sitting on a rug. Make up stories about Ibis Island, or else just stare at the sky and rub your feet in the grass. Preferably take a special someone and watch the sun go down. It’s impossible not to love our campus at dusk.

5. Develop an Unhealthy Tutor Crush

At worst, this will make you go to class. At best, you might have some forbidden-down-by-the-lake-duck-feeding-action on your hands.

6. Take Up Some Cause or Other

If you must: join student politics or run BBQs for obscure social concerns. But better yet: actually help some people who are poor or sad or hungry or addicted. Your life involves (a) learning and (b) working a cushy part time job at a café, right? Well, even on campus there are plenty of ways to get involved with something a little deeper. And when you stop being such a selfish twat you’ll definitely enjoy uni more.

7. Frequent a Campus Coffee Shop

Pick one and go to it. Lots. Take your books and study there. Take your friends and talk there. Drink Flat Whites and Short Blacks. Hit on the barista. Glare at anyone who takes your regular seat. Get one of those Rewards Cards that promises free coffee. Try to look unkempt, brooding, and studious …but don’t be a wanker about it.

8. Try and Actually Get Good Grades

Sure, threes-get-degrees, (actually, maybe that’s not true anymore,) but anyway – getting a distinction is pretty satisfying. What’s the point of being here if you don’t try? And learning is self-perpetuating. The more you learn, the more interesting your subjects become; and the more interesting your subjects become, the more you want to learn.

9. Play Frisbee or Hacky-Sack or Something in the Great Court

This one isn’t compulsory. For some of you it just won’t be your thing – you think ‘wholesome’ is a curse word, and you pour scorn on any kind of laughter that isn’t cruel or ironic. But come on, at least consider it. You are, after all, getting a bit fat aren’t you? If we’re really honest about it and all? (I am.) Besides, there isn’t a doctor alive who doesn’t recommend exercise as a cure for the blues, and Frisbee is as gentle and unobtrusive as it gets.

10. Get a Better Part Time Job

There are plenty of good jobs on offer. As far as hospitality goes, working for the Union Business Trading Sector isn’t all that bad. You could get a job at the 2nd Degree/Red Room or the Bakery or the Lolly Shop. The pay isn’t terrible. Or else you could always get a job in retail. Book shops are nice. But consider trying to actually get a job that puts your skills to use. There’s this prevalent misconception that it’s extremely difficult to get a part time job that is in any way rewarding or challenging, but that really is a misconception. Become a research assistant on campus or write freelance articles for a street publication or sell your creative nick-knacks at a local market.

To be fair, if there’s one kind of university blues which really is worthy of sympathy it’s this one. There really is something harrowing about being perpetually poor and having to work dead-end jobs to pay the rent at the hovel you’re calling a share house. But I’m merely suggesting that even those blues can be alleviated – throw down your apron and demand a better job. And if you do all the other stuff, even a crappy job won't seem completely not-worth-it.

Anyway, cheer up.

two AMAZING websites

2009-07-05T12:05:00.000-07:00

Far out. You need to see these.

1. WeFeelFine
Collects all the "I feel..." statements from blogs in the last few hours and lets you play with them in various ways. (I think I prefer this one.)

2. Universe
Collects all the news items and events from media sources and maps 'constellations' with them. 'Tis a completely new way to explore the web's information.

Or listen to the creator of these sites talk about them in this TED lecture:

Disastrous Predictions

2009-07-05T01:20:00.001-07:00

The following quotes all involve disastrous predictions that have been made at various times by famous persons. I find them interesting.

"Radio has no future"
-Lord Kelvin

"The time will come when people will travel in stages moved by steam engines, from one city to another, almost as fast as birds fly, fifteen or twenty miles an hour."
-Oliver Evans

"I can state flatly that heavier than air flying machines are impossible."
-Lord Kelvin

"I confess that in 1901 I said to my brother Orville that man would not fly for fifty years. Two years later we ourselves made flights. This demonstration of my impotence as a prophet gave me such a shock that ever since I have distrusted myself and avoided all predictions."
-Wilbur Wright

"The motor car will help solve the congestion of traffic."
-Arthur James Balfour

"Aeroplanes are interesting toys, but of no military value"
-Marshal Ferdinand Foch

"Computers in the future may weigh no more than 1.5 tons."
-Popular Mechanics, 1949

"It will be years before a woman either leads the party or becomes Prime Minister. I certainly do not expect to see it happening in my time."
-Margaret Thatcher, 1974

All of these quotations are taken from the excellent book [Lloyd & Mitchinson, Advanced Banter (Faber & Faber: London, 2008)]

Mega Ant Colony takes over world.

2009-07-04T11:07:00.000-07:00

You really need to check out this article. I quote: "A single mega-colony of ants has colonised much of the world, scientists have discovered."

Cheers! Sante! Oogy wawa!

2009-07-03T22:37:00.000-07:00

WORDS FOR 'CHEERS' IN DIFFERENT LANGUAGES:

Australia - Cheers!
Bengali - Joy!
Brazil - Saude!
China - Gan bei! ("dry the cup")
Denmark - Skaal!
Netherlands - Proost!
Esperanto - Je via sano! (to your health)
Finland - Kippis!
France - Santé!
Georgia - Gagimardschoss!
Germany - Prost!
Hawaii - Okole maluna!
Hungary - Kedves egeszsegere!
India - A la sature!
Italy - Cin cin!
Japaen - Kampai!
Korea - Chukbae!
Morocco - Saha wa'afiab!
Philippines - Mabuhay!
Scotland - Slainte!
Sri Lanka - Seiradewa!
Swahili - Afya!
Turkey - Serefe!
Ukraine - Budmo!
Vietnam - Chia!
Wales - Iechyd da!
Zulu - Oogy wawa!

Feel free to add more, or correct me. I know that more than one word is often used in each of these countries - particularly in Europe.
If you want to see a longer list go here.

love.

Shark vs Octopus?!

2009-07-02T07:05:00.000-07:00

Ok. I'm immature. Admitted. But this is just cool. Fight begins at 1:30.

Some Myths

2009-07-02T00:47:00.000-07:00

1. "We only use 10% of our brain."

No, we use more-or-less all of it. Well, it's true that we don't use all of it at any given time, but we do use almost every part of our brain over the course of a single day. [1]

2. The sea isn't really blue; it's transparent.

No; actually water really is blue. [2]

3. The Eskimos have 400 words for snow.

This isn't true. "Contrary to popular belief, the Eskimos do not have more words for snow than do speakers of English," according to linguist Steven Pinker in his book The Language Instinct. "Counting generously, experts can come up with about a dozen."

4. I really should have said 'Inuit' rather than 'Eskimo'.

No, not necessarily; 'Inuit' is not a catch-all term for Eskimo peoples. "While Inuit describes all of the Eskimo peoples in Canada and Greenland, that is not true in Alaska and Siberia. In Alaska the term Eskimo is commonly used, because it includes both Yupik and Inupiat, while Inuit is not accepted as a collective term ...No universal replacement term for Eskimo, inclusive of all Inuit and Yupik people, is accepted across the geographical area inhabited by the Inuit and Yupik peoples." [3]

5. Alcohol warms you up.

The warm feeling is illusory. Drinking alcohol actually slightly lowers your body temperature. Blood rises to the skin's surface, and this makes you feel warmer, but it causes you to lose surface heat. [4]

Green, Blue, and Grue - puzzles about colour.

2009-06-30T04:31:00.001-07:00

It turns out that not all languages have separate words for the colours Green and Blue. Indeed, different cultures have divided up the colour spectrum in different ways. As QI, tells us

...all languages have words for white and black, if a language contains a third term it is always red, a fourth will either be green or yellow, a fifth will be yellow or green, while only a language with six distinct colours will have a term for blue. Languages without a word for blue will not distinguish it from green; such languages are known to anthropologists as "Grue Languages."

Apparently, Japanese and Welsh both used to be Grue languages.

Strangely, the Japanese still call green traffic lights "ao shingo" which means literally "blue traffic lights", even though they certainly do now have a word for green (which is "Midori" -hence the name of that sweet melon liqueur.)

I must confess that the possibility of Green/Blue confusion seemed quite strange to me until I came across this optical illusion created by Akiyoshi Kitaoka. Now I am just completely baffled. All you have to do is name the colours of the spirals.

Blue and Green, right? Wrong. In fact, those two spirals are exactly the same colour!

Probably you don't believe that. I didn't. But go ahead: put that image into Photoshop, take a sample from each spiral, and you will see that they are an identical shade of bluey-green. In fact, they are the very shade that appears in a little box at the top of this post.

Finally, here is one of my favourite philosophical puzzles called the 'Grue Problem'. It's also known as the New Riddle of Induction. I do not think it has ever been adequately solved. (note that if you aren't at all familiar with the Problem of Induction, this puzzle probably won't make sense to you.)

--Suppose that we have observed many Emeralds, and that all of them have been green. This looks like good reason to accept the hypothesis, at least tentatively, that ALL EMERALDS ARE GREEN.

But consider now the following alternate Hypothesis: "That all Emeralds are Green up to and including [today's date], but will be Blue thereafter." And let's call this hypothesis "ALL EMERALDS ARE GRUE."

The problem arises, because when we consider the evidence we have - that all emeralds we have observed have been green - we find that this supports both of the following hypotheses equally well:

1. ALL EMERALDS ARE GREEN

2. ALL EMERALDS ARE GRUE.

But, of course, common sense tells us that the the second hypothesis is absurd.

Yet why is it absurd? Can you explain it without begging the crucial question? That is the problem.

Clues for Stephen Fry's Dongle of Trefusis After Episode 3

2009-06-24T23:45:00.000-07:00

What follows are thoughts and spoilers about Stephen Fry's serial audio novel/puzzle "The Dongle of Donald Trefusis". If you would rather solve it all by yourself, do not read on.

If you want to look at the Episode 2 clues, go here.

EPISODE 3

The credit for almost all of these clues must be directed to the brilliant and beautiful Briohny Clark.
------

When Halle Berry became the first African-American woman to win an Oscar, she declared in her acceptance speech: “This moment is for Dorothy Dandridge, Lena Horne, Diahann Carroll”.

The first of these names, Dorothy Dandridge, is the 'uncredited singer/dancer' of whom Trefusis speaks. And she was was the first black woman nominated for an Academy Award (as Lead Actress for "Carmen Jones"). She also had a part in the Marx Brothers film A Day at the Races. And This is Film A.

Leonard the 'chicken chaser' is, in fact, Leonard 'Chico' Marx. As Wiki says, "He was originally nicknamed Chicko for his reputation as a ladies' man, or a "chicken chaser" in the popular slang of the day." Julius and Arthur were also Marx Brothers.

A Day at the Races was produced by Irving Grant Thalberg who was nicknamed the 'Wonder Boy'. And F. Scott Fitzgerald based his character Monroe Stahr in The Last Tycoon on Thalberg.

The Lindy Hop is the name of the famous dance from A Day at the Races. It is an African American dance, based on the popular Charleston. You can watch it here:

This dance was named after Charles Lindbergh's Atlantic crossing in 1927. (Trefusis was 6 years old at the time.) And it was this crossing that was portrayed in the film The Spirit of St. Louis (1957). Which is, of course, FILM B.

Now, we need connections:

The first First Lady was Martha Custis Washington, and her Maiden Name was Dandridge! And, as it happens, Washington had an illegitimate half-sister. As Wiki says: "Her younger illegitimate half-sister (date of birth unrecovered) was a slave, Ann Dandridge Costin, who was one-quarter African, one-quarter Cherokee Indian, and half-white; there is further evidence of an illegitimate half-brother Ralph Dandridge (date of birth unrecovered), who was probably white."

This racial-mix is particularly interesting given that in Dorothy Dandridge's book (written by Earl Mills) she speaks about her mother Ruby Dandridge having mixed Jamaican, Mexican, and Native American ancestry.

Author Henry Wiencek, in his 2003 book "An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America", writes that Martha Washington owned her own mulatto half-sister, a slave named Ann Dandridge, who had a child by Martha's son (and therefore Ann's nephew), John Parke "Jack" Custis.

So we have a connection to do with names and family-trees. Now we need to tie these knots a little tighter.

Other bits and pieces:

"In March, 1932, however, [Lindbergh's] infant son, Charles, Jr., was kidnapped and murdered in what was soon dubbed the "Crime of the Century" which eventually led to the Lindbergh family fleeing the United States in December 1935 to live in Europe where they remained up until the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor."

Also, we need to find out about the Roman Statesman and the death in 1911.
My first thought was Cicero: "At the end of 60, Cicero declined Caesar’s invitation to join the political alliance of Caesar, Crassus, and Pompey, which he considered unconstitutional" but "In 57, thanks to the activity of Pompey and particularly the tribune Milo, he was recalled on August 4. And There is a city in Illinois called 'Cicero'.

But as one commenter, Stuartfield, pointed out, Lucius Quinctius Cincinnatus seems more likely. The US city Cincinnati was named in his honour. And he is depicted in this statue with the following inscription: "With one hand he returns the fasces, symbol of power as appointed dictator of Rome. His other hand holds the plow, as he resumes the life of a citizen and farmer."

---
There's heaps more information in the comments regarding the connections, the Cincinnati death, and the 1914 mistake. I could write it all up here, but it's better to let everyone speak for themselves, I think, so that each may enjoy the credit s/he deserves. Have a look at the comments.

Rock, Paper, Scissors, Coffee!

2009-06-24T12:12:00.000-07:00

For two hours each Friday afternoon, a certain cafe at my university will let you 'rock-off' for your coffee. This means that if you beat the Barista in a game of Rock, Paper, Scissors then you can have your coffee for free.

For we poor and caffeine dependent grad-students this is good news. And so I decided to find out if it's possible to tip the scales of probability in our favour.

Now, I vaguely recall studying Nash's Equilibrium Theory as an undergrad in COGS3010, and I remember learning that the best RPS strategy is to simply randomize as rigorously as possible. But I can't be bothered explaining that here if you don't know what I mean. Here's a link to a paper about it if you're interested.

Instead, in this short snippet, I only want to share four interesting pointers that I gleaned from the interweb. They are probably bollocks. But why not try 'em?

1) Paper is always a good option. People only select Scissors 29.6% of the time. Obviously, this means that you lose less often. [1]

2) Apparently, competition RPS games are 'best of three'. And the correct way to refer to a set of three moves is called a 'Gambit'. There are, of course, exactly 27 different Gambits, and the most common eight are these: "Avalanche (RRR); Bureaucrat (PPP); Crescendo (PSR); Dénouement (RSP); Fistfull o’ Dollars (RPP); Paper Dolls (PSS); Scissor Sandwich (PSP); Toolbox (SSS)."[2]

3) "Rock is for rookies." This, as it turns out, is a well known mantra amongst the competition players, since almost all new players will go with Rock on their first throw.

4) If you are playing someone who isn't a rookie, go Scissors first. The reasoning? well, 'rock is for rookies'; and so if they ain't a rookie, then you should at least get a tie.

Now: go win coffee.

Why Antique Collection is a Pyramid Scheme

2009-06-24T08:41:00.000-07:00

It's comforting to know that wherever you are in the world you can watch Antique Roadshow. Here in Dubai it screens twice a day, back home in Brisbane it's on every afternoon, and I'm quite sure that even the '-ekistan' countries tune in weekly. And the reason I find the program so comforting is that I have come to associate it with the wonderful promise of an afternoon nap. In fact, so strong is this association in my mind, that I'm reasonably convinced that it is the most credible explanation for the show's immense popularity. I mean, Valium is popular for this very reason. Coincidence? I don't think so. No, friends, it's well established that even an anxious insomniac on Crystal-Meth could catch twenty-five minutes' shut-eye whilst British toffs discuss the heritage of their father's wardrobe. And herein lies The Roashow's popularity.

But a few days ago, for the first time, I actually watched a whole episode through. And, apart from being a waste of time, it made me very curious about the sustainability of the grand antique-collection game. Truth be told, I've come to believe that antique collection is really akin to an odd sort of Pyramid Scheme.

Now, I'm not talking here about antiques that are bought because they look pretty or serve some purpose. My brilliant sisters, for example, love buying old furniture, sanding it down, painting it a transparent shade of cream, and generally getting a dose of satisfaction from making something old look beautiful. (Or chic, as I think I ought to say.) And although this isn't the kind of think that I like, I can begin to understand why people might think it's fun.

What I am talking about, are those antiques that people buy for the sole purpose of on-selling them at a later date in the hope of making a tidy profit. The container pictured here is the kind of useless and ugly object I have in mind. But this item, hideous though it is, is a veritable Venus de Milo compared with most of the crap that I've seen bought and sold on that television program. Some of it is much worse. And if you've caught even five minutes of Antique Roadshow or Bargain Hunt you know exactly what I mean.

But buying ugly junk is still a pretty good idea as long as you can be reasonably assured that it will increase in value. And, certainly, some people have made a fortune on the back of this trend. Unfortunately, however, I see no reason why it should continue.

There are certain Pyramid Schemes that operate by offering the potential-client the option to buy a group of items, which (it is admitted) have no intrinsic value of their own, but which come with a sort of 'right' that allows the buyer to on-sell these items for a greater sum to someone else. And, in turn, that someone-else is given the 'right' to on-sell the items for an even greater amount, and so on, and so on, and up the Pyramid goes.

And this is all good and well. Unless, of course, you are the person who ends up with the worthless bunch of objects when there's no one else stupid enough to buy them.

Antiques, I think, are a lot like this. My guess is that one day the antique bubble will simply burst. Some of our wiser descendants will all just wake-up one fine decade and decide that, truth be told, they don't much care for porcelain-figurines or chipped-floral-vases-with-pastel-motifs, regardless of their respectable Edwardian providence.

So my view is: when it comes to filling your home with possessions, only buy what is useful, or beautiful, or wonderful in some other artistically inexplicable sense. That way your children won't inherit the manky bottom floor of a rapidly crumbling pyramid.

Expanding Earth

2009-06-22T04:20:00.001-07:00

I have no idea if this is true. I have my doubts. But it's an elegant theory. And it's very cool to watch.

Thoughts on the UQ Secular Freethinkers Society

2009-06-21T03:33:00.000-07:00

There's a society at the academic institution I attend called the Secular Freethinkers Society. Now, for my part, I think that putting the qualification 'secular' before the words 'Free Thinkers' is a bit like putting the word 'Tory' before the words 'Bipartisan Society'. But, nonetheless, I can understand what they're on about. They don't believe in God; they think religion is indoctrination and rot; and consequently they feel that the only way to 'think freely' is to be secular.

The society is run by a very amiable fellow, and I'm friends with many of the members. A good bunch: concerned with justice, truth, equity, etc.

But I was browsing through their public Facebook Discussion Board this morning and I found it to be a very baffling experience. [I can't link to it for some reason. Please search for it yourself - it's easy to find.]

Most baffling, I suppose, was the general tone. It went something like this: Christians are absolute idiots who only believe what they believe because (i) they were brought up that way, (2) they were indoctrinated, or (3) they are stupid.' [my paraphrase; please do check its accuracy for yourself ]

I found this remarkable given that (a) I know a great many believers who are both very bright and who came to their beliefs late in life; and (b) I have taught a great many of the students from the Sec Society who are making these claims, and am quite sure that some of them aren't nearly as bright as they claim to be. [Others of the society, I very happily admit, are smart. My argument here is not that the Freethinkers have it the wrong way round and that believers are in fact the unanimously bright ones (that would be false); my argument is only that it's absurd to draw a definitive distinction between atheists and theists in terms of their intellectual aptitudes.]

The Secretary of their society says this: "...believers are believers because they're exposed to one-side exclusively, and hardly (sometimes never) hear the other side out."

He also thinks that secular-conversion is to be prized:

"Personally, I think the best strategy is to infiltrate church/bible study groups and question (lightly) what they teach. I've been to a lot of them and they always teach rubbish that new believers think is true, when in fact they are either outright lies or logical fallacies. Don't even need a lot of people do this, one or two at most is fine given the lack of logic and scientific knowledge I've seen at these groups."

Oh man! You don't need to infiltrate! I actively invite you to come speak about the Bible with me!

Now, I'm not here pretending to be very smart, or to have 'all the answers' as the cliche goes. [Indeed, see the post below: I can't even understand why the Universe should have no edge!] But I have sincerely, and at great length, considered my beliefs in Christ. And, honestly: I believe them solely for the reason that I think that they are true. Wholeheartedly, I welcome discussion.

I feel I should finish, once again, with a qualification, for I well know that I am treading on hostile ground. Here we go:

I genuinely like the members of this society whom I have met. I am also genuinely happy that they are passionate about discussing these kinds of issues. All that I object to are the mad accusations of utter stupidity that are leveled against my kind on their discussion boards. And all that I hope for is a retraction of these views, or else some semblance of reasonable dialogue concerning why I am, in fact, (together with all of my kin) ludicrously foolish.

[The quotes from the Secretary are to be found under the discussion heading "Debate/Dialogue with religious groups?"]

Some Free-Thinking about the Edge of Everything.

2009-06-20T05:41:00.000-07:00

The Universe, they say, is expanding. And no doubt it is.

Obviously, however, there arises a difficulty: If the Universe is everything that there is - if it contains all spatial and temporal dimensions - then there could not be any area or dimension into which the universe might expand.

This difficulty is very old. Kant was certainly aware of it; but I expect that it is very much older than that.

Now, I've been told on quite a few occasions that modern physics has 'solved this difficulty'. But, I've never discovered quite how this solution is supposed to work. And not for lack of trying.

One 'scientist' tried to tell me that I should imagine space-and-time-together as being a balloon, and then imagine the process of expansion as being the inflation of that balloon.
"Right," say I, "that's possible; but then you need some kind of meta-space-time into which this regular-space-time balloon can inflate."
But 'No', I'm told: 'that's not right'. [End of discussion] And I'm left wondering why.

On another occasion I asked a different university-scientist why it is we can't reach the 'edge' of the Universe given that it is roughly shaped like a sphere. The answer I received was this:

"Try to imagine a one-dimensional space. There is only a line without width. And imagine further that you live on that line and that you too are entirely one-dimensional.

Now imagine further that this line, unbeknownst to you, actually folds around into a circle. And note that because of this curve you could travel along your line without ever being able to leave the circle or to meet an edge. The Universe is like that, but with extra dimensions."

On the face of it, this looks like a good explanation; but I don't think that it really is. Specifically, I think it is faulty because the story sneaks-in a dimension to which it is not (even on its own terms) entitled. Here's what I mean.

In the story it is quite true that it would seem to me that I am limited to one-dimensional movement; but because my Unvierse is actually circular, my movement must actually be two-dimensional.

Curves are impossible in one-dimensional space. And so, it must be admitted that if my universe really is curved (and the explanation relies on the supposition that it is) then it cannot really be one-dimensional at all. So:

These considerations lead me to argue against that position in this way:

If the Universe contains x number of dimensions,

And if the reason we cannot reach the edge is to be explained via a curve analogous to the one in the story above,

Then the Universe must be curved in a dimension that it doesn't contain. (In other words, if I live in a ten dimensional universe but cannot possibly reach the edge, this must be because the Universe is curved through eleven dimensions.)

BUT HOW COULD THIS BE TRUE IF THERE ARE NO DIMENSIONS THAT AREN'T CONTAINED IN THE UNIVERSE?!?

Plainly it cannot. And so we have a reductio of the explanation.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the Universe isn't as the scientists describe it. What I am saying, is that questions like these require good answers, and it is very difficult to find anyone who knows them - even amongst those who practise science for a living.

"The beginning of wisdom is found in doubting; by doubting we come to the
question, and by seeking we may come upon the truth." - Abelard

Powers of Ten: comprehending the massiveness of the universe.

2009-06-19T11:37:00.000-07:00

This is an old video, but a goodn. If you haven't seen it: you must.

Snatch from his hand the balance and the rod?

2009-06-19T09:27:00.000-07:00

In general, I don't like apologetics at all. But, for Alexander Pope, I'm all about exceptions.

When the proud steed shall know why man restrains
His fiery course, or drives him o'er the plains;
When the dull ox, why now he breaks the clod,
Is now a victim, and now Egypt's God;
Then shall man's pride and dulness comprehend
His actions', passions', being's, use and end;
Why doing, suff'ring, check'd, impell'd; and why
This hour a Slave, the next a Deity.

[...]

Go, wiser thou! and in thy scale of sense
Weigh thy opinion against Providence;
Call imperfection what thou fanciest such;
Say, here he gives too little, there too much;
Destroy all creatures for thy sport or gust,
Yet cry, if man's unhappy, God's unjust;
If man alone engross not Heav'n's high care,
Alone made perfect here, immortal there:
Snatch from his hand the balance and the rod,
Rejudge his justice, be the god of God.
In pride, in reas'ning pride, our error lies;
All quit their sphere, and rush into the skies!
Pride still is aiming at the bless'd abodes,
Men would be Angels, Angels would be Gods.
Aspiring to be Gods if Angels fell,
Aspiring to be Angels men rebel:
And who but wishes to invert the laws
Of order, sings against th'Eternal Cause.

[...]

The bliss of man (could pride that blessing find)
Is not to act or think beyond mankind;
No powers of body or of soul to share,
But what his nature and his state can bear.
Why has not man a microscopic eye?
For this plain reason, man is not a fly.
Say, what the use, were finer optics giv'n,
To inspect a mite, not comprehend the Heav'n?
Or touch, if tremblingly alive all o'er,
To smart and agonize at every pore?
Or quick effluvia darting thro' the brain,
Die of a rose in aromatic pain?
If nature thunder'd in his opening ears,
And stunn'd him with the music of the spheres,
How would he wish that Heav'n had left him still
The whisp'ring zephyr and the purling rill?
What finds not Providence all good and wise,
Alike in what it gives and what denies?

--
Read the rest. It's my fav.

Insurance Against Alien Abduction: Worth it?

2009-06-18T03:44:00.000-07:00

Well, no ...it's not.

But still, I was surprised twice today: once when I discovered that you can actually take out an insurance policy against being abducted by aliens. (Indeed, in 1994, 35,000 Americans did just that.) And then again when I discovered that sometimes these insurance policies actually pay out!

See for yourself:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1347&dat=19970401&id=x90SAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HP0DAhttp://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1347&dat=19970401&id=x90SAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HP0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=6866,86077

http://www.sacred-texts.com/ufo/alienins.htm

Things I don't know about global warming.

2009-06-16T20:52:00.001-07:00

When it comes to global warming, I can roughly sort my friends into two catagories:

(1) There are those who scowl at me whenever I buy food wrapped in plastic; who insist that climate-change is the no.1 political issue; and who literally shed tears in that Gore film.

(2) And there are those who think that the whole charade is some lefty plot; who light up their house with spotlights during Earth Hour "just to spite 'em"; and who think Jeremey Clarkson from Top Gear is right about absolutely everything.

But when I ask anyone about it, I always get the same red-faced panic-ed response. Nobody really seems to have any idea why they believe what they believe. And if only I had a marshmallow for every time someone has misused the phrase "carbon emission" then I'd be one happy fat bastard.

Now, I'm not pointing any fingers of judgement here. I heartily confess that I have absolutely no idea what's going on. I just think it very strange that we are so divided over something of which we are so ignorant.

That Gore film didn't help, did it? Well, I know some of you loved it, but I thought it was smarmy crap. Where were the facts? Where were the experts? I couldn't decide if it was a lecture or a love story. Damn it, man, why are you lying to me about Polar Bears when I just want to know if you can demonstrate the right kind of causal link on that Carbon graph!?

And, then, when the Courts ruled that many of the film's details went against scientific-consensus, I just shrugged.

Now, it seems to me that human-induced global warming must be occurring on some non-trivial level. Of the small handful of people I heartily trust in the academic world, all of them believe so. Consequently, at the moment, I believe in the existence of global-warming ad hominem. And so I try to turn off my lights when I'm not using them, eat a little less meat, and apologize to my house-mates when I run the same load of clothes through the washing-machine twice.

But I need to find out more.

The difficulty, however, is penetrating the debate. I've read a million web-sites, and I've watched a trillion videos, but I'm very little the wiser.

So until I manage to find some better material, my position is this: I have no idea what's going on at all.

Lonely Heart?

2009-06-15T10:33:00.000-07:00

Do you ever read those 'love wanted' classifieds in the newspaper? You know - the ones that go, "Sensitive new age guy, likes walks on the beach, seeks skinny female for a filthy spanking"?

Well, maybe not exactly like that.

But anyway; it turns out that those ads have been around for centuries, and I find that interesting.

In fact, Francesca Beauman, who's currently writing a book about the whole phenomenon, has discovered that lonely heart advertisements date back at least as far as 1695. The earliest she's come across reads:

A gentleman, about 30 years of age,...has a very good estate, would willingly match himself to some good young gentlewoman who has a fortune of three-thousand pounds or there abouts.

Better, however, is this one from 1770:

Man seeks wife. Must have shapely ankle and good cow management skills.

Beauman's book will be out soon enough. Until then you could listen to these facts and others on The Museum of Curiosity radio show which stars John Lloyd and Bill Bailey and is available to buy from Itunes.

Preliminary Clues for Fry's Dongle after Ep. 2

2009-06-15T00:21:00.001-07:00

What follows are some thoughts about Stephen Fry's Dongle puzzle. If you would prefer not to work with me, but would rather to do it all by yourself, DO NOT READ ON!

[If you're looking for the Episode THREE Clues click here.]

I've just listened to Episode 2 and have conducted a bit of research. Clearly, what we have to do is find a connection between the two paintings to which Trefusis directs us.

The portrait (above) is easy enough to recognize. That's Dr Johnson of Dictionary fame. And that particular piece was painted by Sir Joshua Reynolds.

The landscape is more difficult. To be honest, at first, I had no idea what it was called or who painted it. And googling all sorts of key words didn't help. But just five minutes ago, out of the blue, I received a very curious and crackly voice-message from my mother. Most of this message was (mysteriously) indecipherable through static, but I could make out at least two words: 'The Avenue'. And, guessing that she was referring to the puzzle we had discussed the evening before, these words set me on the right track. [Since I'm staying with my parents in Dubai for a month, my mother has been listening to Fry with me; but I have no idea how or why suddenly, whilst shopping at the Mall of the Emirates, she came to the correct conclusion.]

Anyway, the landscape is called 'Avenue at Middelharnis' and it was painted in 1689 (or there abouts) by Meindert Hobbema.

So what is the connection? ...I don't quite know.

I think it must have something to do with James Boswell.

Boswell, as you will recall, was Dr Johnson's biographer. (You should read that if you haven't. It's wonderful.)

Also, there is a second, more decisive, reference: you might remember Trefusis saying early on in Ep. 2: ""Alexander died in a house called 'Balmuto' - that might be important."

I ran an image search on google for 'Alexander Balmuto' and almost every result contained the word 'Boswell' - specifically 'Sir John Boswell of Balmuto' which appears to be related to a tower (which the images all portray.) http://images.google.com.au/images?gbv=2&hl=en&um=1&sa=1&q=alexander+balmuto&aq=f&oq=

--
EDIT:
Ok, I've made some progress, but not much.

Firstly, Fry's phrase 'heights above the torrent' translates from Gaelic into uachdar tuil which becomes the place name Auchtertool. This place, as it happens, is where James Boswell's son [thanks tasslehoof for the correction] - Alexander Boswell - was mortally wounded in a duel in 1822. He later died in nearby Balmuto House. ...Obviously these connections are tight enough to be important.

The question Fry specifically asks is, how is this person (Dr Johnson, I presume) connected with the provenance (origin, source, possibly prior owner) of the landscape. ....I think that's going to be the clincher.
---
EDIT 2:

I'm a little bit further. After much google-trawling I've discovered that the Gallery bought the painting from Sir Robert Peel the once Prime Minister. [http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/about/history/growth/collection.htm]

It seems he probably inherited the piece from his father of the same name. I think I read somewhere that this senior Robert Peel was a Dutch art collector. At any rate, one of the Peels was a Dutch art collector.

On another (probably) unrelated note: Boswell travelled to Holland and, as wiki says, "His well observed diaries of this time have been compiled into two books Boswell in Holland and Boswell and the Grand Tour". That looks like a tenuous link. Boswell wrote about both Johnson and Holland. If only I could find a Boswell entry that talks specifically about middelharnis, then that would indicate a more strenuous connection. [Middelharnis, by the way, is on the island of Over Flakee, a province of South Holland in the mouth of the Maas.]

EDIT 3: SEE THE COMMENTS FOR MUCH MORE INFORMATION. SOME BRILLIANT SOULS HAVE HELPED A GREAT DEAL.
AND STAY TUNED: I'LL BLOG AGAIN AFTER EP. 3 AND WE CAN WORK TOGETHER AGAIN.

The Art of Writing

2009-06-14T09:10:00.000-07:00

I'm deep in the Thesis Trenches right now, and I've been thinking a lot about writing. Particularly, I've been reminded of some advice on the subject once offered by the eminent Bertrand Russell of which my favourite piece is this:

Put a comma every four words, and never use 'and' except at the beginning of a sentence

It's novel, it's funny, and I heartily agree with its spirit.

But this too is worth hearing again, even if we've heard it many times before:

...although direct imitation is always to be deprecated, there is much to be gained by familiarity with good prose, especially in cultivating a sense for prose rhythm.

And these are solid rules:

First: never use a long word if a short word will do. Second: if you want to make a statement with a great many qualifications, put some of the qualifications in separate sentences. Third: do not let the beginning of your sentence lead the reader to an expectation which is contradicted by the end.

Orwell's rules are even better:

1. Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
2. Never use a long word where a short one will do.
3. If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
4. Never use the passive where you can use the active.
5. Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
6. Break any of these rules sooner than saying anything outright barbarous.

But, in the end, I'm not a big fan of rules at all. My view is that in order to write well one only needs to love writing, and to love what one is writing about.

To conclude, I offer Hemingway:

“I write one page of masterpiece to ninety one pages of shit. I try to put the shit in the wastebasket.”

Now, back to the trenches.

Astrologist feels sorry for moon as Orbiter crashes.

2009-06-12T10:30:00.001-07:00

Wow. Some people are crazy.

There's this Japanese lunar orbiter named Kaguya that crashed into the moon some time today. Scientists are hoping to learn more about the moon's chemical composition by analysing the way the crash went down.

Author and Astrologist Satya Harvey isn't' very happy about this. Apparently we didn't have the Moon's 'permission' and so we therefore disrespected the 'web of life'.

I quote:

"In many traditions, including astrology, the moon represents the feminine... Women are connected to the moon by their menstrual cycles while they are fertile, and all beings, including the earth herself, are affected by the pull of the tides. Purposefully crashing something into the moon just to watch what happens is akin to a schoolboy cutting up a live frog to see what makes it jump. It is an example of the domination of the left-brained rational scientific approach over the intuitive. Did these scientists talk to the moon? Tell her what they were doing? Ask her permission? Show her respect?When we are connected into the web of life, we know that what we do to one part is what we do to all. Gaining knowledge by destruction is an empty victory."
[source: http://www.examiner.com/x-12038-SF-Astrology-Examiner~y2009m6d10-Orbiter-crashing-into-the-moon]

Is that not more amusing than Russell Brand?

Anyway, crazy astrology aside, Kaguya was very cool. It recorded, for example, this brilliant video of the Earth rising from the perspective of the moon.

Donald Trefusis and why you need him.

2009-06-11T10:27:00.000-07:00

I never thought I'd ever actually pay for something from Itunes. But when Stephen Fry launched a new audio project called The Dongle of Donald Trefusis and offered it for the bargain price of $3, it had to be done.

Now, having gorged on the velvety English of the first two episodes for the past hour, I am writing to urge you to do likewise. Trust me: you really really need it.

In fact, if you decide for whatever foolish reason that you aren't going to alt-tab right away and hastily begin the download, then I advise that it's probably best to avoid me for a while: I will be lurking next to your drink with a handful of Flunitrazepam and a view to sabotaging your Itunes library before you can scream 'date rape'.

It's just amazing. Stephen Fry is unspeakably brilliant, and what he's doing with this series is on a whole new level of fascination.

How can I describe it? It's kind of like a cross between an auto-biography, a novel, and a thisisnottom puzzle (see past posts if you don't know what that last one is).

It's an entirely interactive novel that will be released in parts in the form of audio-chapters, and it involves the listner (us!) solving various cryptic puzzles whilst generally learning a good deal of interesting trivia from Britain's most brilliant polymath.

Go get it now or else I really might drug you.

http://www.stephenfry.com/dongle/

love.

The Flat Earth Society

2009-06-09T00:16:00.000-07:00

I have to start by saying that I really quite like the people at the Flat Earth Society. They are, of course, exactly what they sound like: a group of zealots who adamantly insist that the Earth is flat like a plate. And I think that's neat.

But, wonderfully amusing though it is, it's also crazy.

For instance, these people are quite insistent that Antarctica doesn't exist as a continent. (Apparently it's actually the wall that forms the edge of the giant disc. You couldn't possibly cross it, you'd just hit a barrier. But, they admit, it would be quite easy to become so confused as to think that you had crossed a continent, especially if you began with the 'false preconception' that the earth is round.) See the map of the supposedly Flat Earth above. It's pretty wacko.

Famously, an advocate of the Flat Earth was once given a photo of Earth as taken from an Apollo shuttle and was asked to comment. He replied only: "Yes, I can see how you might be deceived into thinking it's round."

But, to be fair, The FES do have some pretty interesting arguments that aren't altogether insane even though they are, of course, unsound. Check them out for yourself: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm

And besides, it's easy to laugh at Flat Earth Society, but do you and I really know all that much about our planet's shape?!
[Do you, for example, think that the ancients and the Medievals believed that the Earth is flat? That's completely false. Do you think that Columbus set out to show that the Earth is round? That's false too. Columbus thought the Earth was pear shaped.]

Anyway, I thoroughly recommend Asimov's very short classic "How Did We Find Out That the Earth is Round?" It's available here in full and is absolutely brilliant.
http://www.vidyaonline.net/arvindgupta/earthpix.pdf

The Onion

2009-05-24T20:54:00.000-07:00

Oo, my picture is appearing in The Onion's forthcoming publication 'The Onion and Philosophy'.

New TiNT puzzle.

2009-05-12T05:13:00.000-07:00

New thisisnottom puzzle begins here.
I've solved this video clue, but can't solve the next one. Let me know if you get further (but don't tell me how.)

You have to solve for the quesiton marks and then go to that url.

http://www.thisisnottom.com/?????????

Name em?

2009-05-11T04:30:00.000-07:00

This picture was going around a while ago. You have to name as many as you can. Click the picture to make it bigger in a new window - even then you might have to use your browser to zoom in a bit. According to the email I received, if you can get 25 you are 'cultured'. Haha! Enjoy.

Things I can do #1

2009-05-11T03:14:00.000-07:00

That's sped up 1.5x so you don't die of boredom. Real time on that one was 1:32. Fastest solve at the moment is 1:15.

You know this guy? Lawrence Leung?

From that ABC show 'Choose Your Own Adventure'?
He's put up a cubing competition wherein you post videos to win prizes. One of the catagories is 'creative' so I'm thinking about using video effects to make it look like I can do things that I can't really do - solve it with my elbows or something.

The following, for example, is a video of me solving it with one hand. Unlike the vid above, this one isn't real- it's a video trick. (I just start with it solved, unsolve it with one hand, and then run the video backwards.) Let me know if you have any cool ideas.

Stairway to Heaven backwards: EVIL?

2009-05-03T01:30:00.001-07:00

I love this talk.

Please, please, please at least watch from 9:05 til 11:30.

WOOOOO SATISFACTION

2009-04-29T23:36:00.001-07:00

I solved my first complete thisisnottom puzzle.
That rocks. Every other time I got stuck somewhere, and once I cheated.
But not this time! Hoorah!

Anyway, if you want a shot at this week's puzzle it starts here:

http://www.thisisnottom.com/???????????

You have to solve for the question marks, then go to that address.
Google is your friend.

From there it gets harder.

Religious Phrases I Don't Like # 1

2009-04-27T22:14:00.001-07:00

"We all have our own little cross to bear."

Bah. No. We don't. How could a supposedly 'Christian' phrase so radically misunderstand grace: the central truth of Christ.

Fruity Late NIght Idea # 2

2009-04-27T02:53:00.001-07:00

1. I think everyone in Australia should be taxed 5c a week for this special purpose:

2. To redistribute it in lump sums to those who earn less than 100k a year.

3. Those who earn significantly less than 100k a year would be given a higher probability of winning than those who earn about that much. For example if you earned 100k exactly you might have 1 automatic ticket in the weekly lottery, but if you earned 10k a year you might have 9 tickets in the same.

4. Each week there would be ten winners.

5. The amount would be: $0.05 * 21.7 million / 10 = $108,500

6. *I suppose it would be unfair to tax people under the age of 18, so the amount might be a bit less than this. In any case, it would still be significant.

I reckon that would be exciting.

Newcomb's Problem

2009-04-26T23:16:00.000-07:00

I'm in the thrall of grading papers at the moment. I have a few hundred and they take about 30 mins each. It's a heavy yoke.

Anyway, some of the essays (for Phil1110 - Critical Reasoning) concern my favourite decision theory puzzle - Newcomb's Problem. It goes like this:

What follows is a problem posed by William Newcomb, a physicist. (The version below is due to the philosopher Mark Sainsbury.) Suppose you are confronted with a choice. There are two boxes in front of you, A and B. You may either open both box A and B or else just open box B. You may keep what is inside any box you open, but you may not keep what is inside any box you do not open. The background is this.

A very powerful being, who has been invariably accurate in their predictions about your behaviour in the past, has already acted in the following way:
They have put $1,000 in box A. If they have predicted that you will open just box B, they have in addition put $1,000,000 in box B. If they have predicted that you will open both boxes, they have put nothing in box B.So what should you do? Open both boxes or just box B? There seem good arguments for both options, yet you cannot do both!

The argument for opening both boxes goes as follows. The powerful being ÷ let us call them the Predictor ÷ has already acted. Either they have put money in both boxes or they have put money in just box A. In the first case, by opening both boxes you will win $1,001,000. In the second case, by opening both boxes you will at least win $1,000, which is better than nothing. By contrast, if you were to open just box B, you would win just $1,000,000 on the first assumption (that the Predictor has put money in both boxes) and nothing on the second assumption (that the Predictor has put money in just box A. In either case, you would be $1,000 worse off than had you opened both boxes. So opening both boxes is the best thing to do.

The argument for opening just box B, on the other hand, goes as follows. Since the Predictor has always been right in their earlier predictions, you have every reason to think that they will be right in this one. So you have every reason to think that if you were to open both boxes, the Predictor would have predicted this and so would have left box B empty. So you have every reason to think that it would not be best to open both boxes. Likewise, you have every reason to think that if you choose to open just box B, the Predictor will have predicted this, and so will have put $1,000,000 inside it. Imagine a third party, who knows all the facts. He will bet heavily that if you open just box B you will win $1,000,000. He will bet heavily that if you open both boxes you will only get $1,000. You have to agree that his bets are rational. So it must be rational for you to open just box B.

So what should you do?

Prime Ministers for the win.

2009-04-23T19:15:00.000-07:00

After learning the British Monarchs and US Presidents, I'm gonna do the Australian Prime Ministers.

Do you know anyone who knows all of these!?
I vow to know em by heart before the week's out. They are:

Edmund Barton
Alfred Deakin
John Watson
George Reid
Alfred Deakin
Andrew Fisher
Alfred Deakin
Andrew Fisher
Joseph Cook
Andrew Fisher
Billy Hughes
Stanley Bruce
James Scullin
Joseph Lyons
Earle Page
Robert Menzies
Arthur Fadden
John Curtin
Francis Forde
Ben Chifley
Robert Menzies
Harold Holt
John McEwan
John Gorton
William McMahon
Gough Whitlam
Malcolm Fraser
Robert Hawke
Paul Keating
John Howard
Kevin Rudd

Fruity Late Night Idea #1

2009-04-22T06:25:00.000-07:00

I PROPOSE A FREE MARKET OF GALAXY TRADING.

1. There are lots of obscenely poor people on this planet of ours.

2. There are, it is estimated, something in the range of 125 billion galaxies in the unvierse. [ref] And these are, for all we know, 'un-owned'.

3. Let's number all these galaxies, put them in some kind of lottery, and give everyone on earth an even share.

4. Then: Let's open a free-market in which people can trade or sell their galaxies. What they would be trading would be the sole rights to name them, and perhaps to have certain rights concerning making documentaries about them and stuff.

5. I am quite convinced that people would buy them. I would very happily buy the Sombrero Galaxy:

6. These new resources would make new wealth! The poor would be less poor!

7. The rich, of course, would get richer - but there's nothing objectionable about that. Contrary to what is often thought, the economy isn't always a zero-sum game.

I told you it was fruity.
But don't say I'm stuck in any kind of 'thinking box'. Oh no, I'm right outside of that.

-m

Props.

2009-04-22T06:08:00.001-07:00

So, since last post, Jim got a little high on credit and decided he wanted to live vicariously through my blog from Istanbul. Consequently he told me about the following site.

http://graphs.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=6;ti=2007$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue=8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL%5Fn5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uniValue=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMin=194;dataMax=96846$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=23;dataMax=86$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=

Normally, of course, I'd refuse to write about it just to maintain some semblance of control. It's my blog after all. But OH MY GOODNESS IT'S AMAZING.
Seriously, check it out or else die incomplete.

thisisnottom

2009-04-20T20:31:00.001-07:00

Argh. Jim got me on to this puzzle extravaganza called ThisIsNotTom. Basically, you start at this website:

http://www.thisisnottom.com/

And from there you go on this megga frustrating journey of cryptic puzzles. (To get off that page, for instance, you click on the right eye.

Eventually you get to this youtube channel which is not a bad place to start:

http://www.youtube.com/isthistom

Here's an example of a puzzle:

So what you have to do is use the video to find out what the question-marks in the title mean, and then fill them in and go to that website for the next clue.

For example, the answer to that video is 'konami' so you'd go to www.thisisnottom.com/konami

[To get the answer you have to note how the big circle moves. It goes 'up up down down left right left right' which happens to be a famous video-game sequence called the 'konami code'. (I didn't know it was called that. I just googled the sequence when I discovered it. To solve these puzzles you have to use google all the time. It's part of the game.)]

[OH, by the way, if you think you haven't heard of the code you probably have anyway: do you recall those rad Moldy Peaches lyrics from that Juno song 'Anyone else but you'? It goes, "Up up down down left right left right B A Start/ Just because we use cheats doesn't mean we're not smart!"]

Anyway, here's another one you might like to try. It took me ages, and I feel very sadistic for passing it on. But Jim did it to me, so tough cookies. Here's a hint: in America they sometimes call lollipops 'suckers'. Enjoy.

Chris Sharma

2009-04-19T23:40:00.001-07:00

I get addicted to things all the time, and at the moment it's climbing films. I have about 15 so far. They are just crazy amazing. The people are freaks. I love what humans can do when they become obsessive.

Chris Sharma is more or less the Michael Jordan of rock climbing. He's easily the most famous climber, and almost everyone agrees he's the best. Check it out. I think it will boggle your mind.

Business Idea # 2

2009-04-19T21:45:00.000-07:00

1. Open a long thin cafe.
2. Fill it with bean bags and low tables. Keep it minimalist. Keep the lighting moderately low, but scatter lamps so people can read.

3. Have a counter at the end, along which are arranged different kinds of glasses.
4. Under the counter is a fridge containing all manner of bottles of juices and soft drinks.

5. CHARGE A FLAT RATE TO ENTER (say, $15) which includes 'all you can drink' and free wireless.

6. There is a also one of those easy to use pod-style coffee machines, and an assortment of teas.

7. Paint one of the long walls entirely in blackboard paint. On that wall, constantly update a list of all the things that are happening in the area: gallery openings, concerts, events, dinner specials, etc.

8. Along the opposite wall, hang the works of local artists and change these regularly.

9. Market it in three ways: a) as the kind of cafe you go to at the start of the night: a place to meet, a place to chill, and (most of all) a place to find out what is going on. [Too many people say "Brisbane is boring". My motto is: "Only boring people get bored." ]
b) as the kind of place you could go with your laptop during the day to study while grazing on an assortment of beverages.
AND
c) as the kind of place where local artists could show off their stuff.

10. Employ funky youngsters who know what's going on, and stress that their job is primarily to be approchable and chatty. [Their only other tasks would be to collect the money, wipe tables, and to put the used glasses through the washing machines.]

That's all.
What do you think?

Two Random Facts.

2009-04-19T21:42:00.000-07:00

-The dot of an ‘i’ in size 12 Times New Roman Font - the beige of fonts - contains something in the region of 500,000,000,000 protons

-The moon is slipping from the grasp of Earth’s gravitation pull at a rate of approximately 4 centimetres a year.

Gladwell on Spaghetti Sauce

2009-04-19T06:17:00.001-07:00

This is very possibly the best public lecture I've ever seen.

2009-04-19T05:35:00.001-07:00

I've been Rubix-ing for a while now - 'Cubing' as those in the know call it. (And oh yes, I'm definitely in the know.) I just thought I'd say that I smashed my record and now I'm down to 1:15. I neeeeeed to break the minute-mark. THEN I'll be happy. That's all.

Fry!

2009-04-18T23:38:00.000-07:00

SWEET. Stephen Fry has a web page. And he uploads free podcasts!!!
If you don't know why that is so wonderful, I suggest you find out.

http://www.stephenfry.com/

Also: watch QI. It will change your life. Here's a sample:

Whitman lines:

2009-04-18T23:11:00.000-07:00

Whitman makes me happy. I don't generally go for free verse. But Whitman is just awesome. Here is a selection of unconnected lines from Song of Myself that I liked best.

I, now thirty seven years old in perfect health begin,
Hoping to cease not til death.

The past and present wilt - I have fill'd them, emptied them.
And proceed to fill my next fold of the future.

Listener up there! What have you to confide in me?
Look in my face while I snuff the sidle of evening,
(Talk honestly, no one else hears you, and I stay only a minute longer.)

Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

The spotted hawk swoops by and accuses me,
he complains of my gab and my loitering.
I too am not a bit tamed, I too am unstranslatable,
I sound my barbaric yawp over the roofs of the world.

The last scud of day holds back for me,
It flings my likeness after the rest and true as any on the shadow'd wilds,
It coaxes me to the vapor and the dusk.

I depart as air, I shake my white locks at the runaway sun,
I affuse my flesh in eddies, and drift it in lacy jags.

I bequeath myself to the dirt to grow from the grass I love,
If you want me again look for me under your boot-soles.
You will hardly know who I am or what I mean,
But I shall be good health to you nevertheless,
and filter and fibre your blood.

Failing to fetch me at first keep encouraged,
Missing me one place search another,
I stop somewhere waiting for you.

The floor is made of lava!

2009-04-18T23:01:00.000-07:00

Anyone who's spent at least 2 minutes with me in the last 2 weeks knows that I'm currently obsessed with playing that childhood game called 'The Floor is Made of Lava'. It might also be known as 'House-Climbing' or 'Urban-Bouldering'.

Basically you just have to get around your house (or playground or whatever) without touching the ground. Using cushions or rugs is cheating, and the higher you go the better. Using door frames is best practice.

Get into it.

Brew-Selecta

2009-04-18T22:49:00.000-07:00

So, I am convinced that this is a good business idea:

1. Open a tiny beer shop in a trendy student district.
2. Buy cartons of exotic beers whenever they are relatively cheap.
3. Take all the beers out of their cartons and line them up all sexy-like in the fridges that run around the walls.

4. SELL ONLY SIX PACKS, AND LET THE CUSTOMERS CHOOSE ANY 6. MIX N MATCH.

5. Provide rustic recycled cardboard holders (with handles) to stick the beers in.

6. Charge a flat rate for any combination. [Perhaps it could also be done with alco-pops for a different flat rate.]

7. Call it 'The Beer Deli' or something equally wanky and market it up bohemian style.

Surely that would go down a treat? Why has it not been done?!

Bigness.

2009-04-18T22:40:00.000-07:00

"Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. "
- Carl Sagan

Enjoi: