20 April 2013
Living in the past (3): turtle diary*
29 July 2011
Chocolate and moral philosophy in Stone Lane
A general guiding rule, for me, is "never go back". If the place (or person, on context) holds bad memories, why revisit them; if good memories, why risk spoiling them? It's a good rule, on the whole ...when I forget to follow it, I usually wish I hadn't. However ... I'm human and I do, sometimes, forget. So, finding myself not far from a seaside town on the south coast of England, where I spent many happy fragments of my childhood, I have allowed myself to be tempted into a wander down memory lane ... or, more accurately, Stone Lane: a long rural road running out from the town's margins into open countryside.
The seven or eight kilometres of Stone Lane held only six houses, then, all in one cluster. There are eight now; still in one cluster, several carrying the same names as half a century ago though most of them are modern rebuilds on the sites of those I remember.
This one, for instance. It bears the same name, "Stonevale Cottage", as did the house where my maternal grandfather lived ... but it's a completely different building, perhaps twenty years old at most. And that builder's merchant (part of a large national chain) behind it: that occupies the quarter hectare of what was his garden and my adventure playground.
Next door to my grandfather, on his right, lived the Goldman family. Mrs Goldman was round faced and jolly; so was her husband, though he was crippled by some degenerative illness and moved slowly, painfully on crutches. Their daughter Julie, six or seven years older than I, good naturedly took me under her wing whenever we visited. Julie didn't even disown me when Simon, her first boyfriend, with motorcycle, leathers and Teddyboy haircut, hinted strongly that three was a crowd. Mr Goldman welcomed me into his shed; I watched as, leaning on his crutches, he worked a miniature lathe to produce tiny, working steam locomotives or aeroplanes. Mrs Goldman fed me scones, home made lemonade and raspberry jam, clotted cream.
Beyond the Goldmans were Mr and Mrs Villiers. I saw Mr Villiers rarely; he worked in London, leaving early and returning late. On rare occasions when I did meet him, he was tall, balding, and seemed ill at ease with me. He would frown, hop from foot to foot, say “well... hello ... old chap ... well...”, hop some more, say “well...” a few more times, then disappear. Mrs Villiers was a different matter; though quite severely arthritic, she moved continually if slowly about her house and her half hectare of garden, chatting with me the whole time about what she was doing. The Villiers, like the Goldmans, had a daughter; unlike Julie Goldman, though, Angela Villiers was probably twenty years older than I, lived elsewhere and visited only occasionally. I probably met Angela only three or four times in my life. On one of those occasions, though, she took me into her bedroom and showed me her complete childhood collection of Biggles books - the aviation adventure stories of W E Johns. So long as I took only one at a time, took great care of it, and returned it as soon as I finished it, I could borrow them whenever I liked. Over subsequent visits, through the years, I worked my way through them all.
Beyond the Villiers were the Kitsons. I sometimes played or went swimming with their son, Simon, if he wasn't at school. Mr Kitson drove a taxi, and was rarely seen unless he offered us a lift to the swimming pool. Mrs Kitson was simply a person who smiled and waved at Simon as we disappeared to play.
There was nobody beyond the Kitsons.
Opposite the front of my grandfather's house, on the other side of the lane, was the Birds' House. The birds were not a family; this was my grandfather's name for a strip of woodland, about fifty metres wide, which stretched the length of Stone Lane. To the right, southward past the Kitsons', it extended a couple of kilometres to the Top Road which I was not allowed to cross. Northward on the left it ran about five kilometres or so until stopped by the village of Five Elms, pausing only briefly after a few hundred metres to enfold a derelict brick works which could, according to an imaginative child's need, be anything from the Alamo through the lost city of the Incas to a Mars colony.
On the other side of my grandfather's house, to the left, were the Cotters. Mr Cotter was the archetypical caricature of a countryman: weatherbeaten, all brown leathery skin and sinew, grey hair, eyes that squinted into the sun, wind and rain even when he was indoors. He was retired (from what, I don't know) but still managed to work a full seven day week as part time game warden for several local farmers, jobbing gardener, repairer of bridges, stiles, culverts, fences and dry stone walls. He too, like Julie Goldman, good naturedly allowed me to trail around after him; from him I acquired portions of a lifetime's landcraft, learned how to track wildlife, discovered how to tickle a trout, saw fox cubs in their lair. Mrs Cotter was bed ridden (again, with what I do not know); the house was home to at least twenty cats, of which a dozen or so were always to be found on or around her bed. As a child I was afraid of her illness but enjoyed her company in the small snug bedroom. Mr Cotter would bring up a tray with a pot of tea or mugs of cocoa, a barrel of biscuits or a plate piled high with thick sliced dense grained home baked bread, toasted on the open fire and topped with fresh churned butter; Mrs Cotter called him Tom, and he called her Alice, and the three of us ate and talked surrounded by cats.
And beyond the Cotters to the left, the last dwelling to disturb the timeless arboreal solitude of Stone Lane, was the house of Miss Baines.
I am ashamed to say that, for no reason that I can now identify, I didn't like Miss Baines. So far as I can remember, she was never anything but kind and friendly to me; yet I maintained my dislike over the dozen years of our visits to Stone Lane. This thoroughly unjust feeling was so strong that, when I wanted to go down the lane beyond the Cotters' front gate, I crossed over and entered the Birds' House to a depth of ten metres or so, went left through the trees for a hundred metres until out of Miss Baines' line of sight, and only then emerge onto the road again.
When I was about seven years old, Miss Baines presented me with the first moral dilemma I consciously remember having to confront. She gave me a packet of chocolate buttons.
What should I do with these chocolate buttons? Of course, I wanted to eat them. Of course, I felt distrust of them. But, beyond those selfish considerations, I also felt the prickings of conscience and guilt. Was it hypocritical (not that I knew that word; was it wrong) to eat a gift knowing that I felt so much dislike for the giver? Was it ungrateful (I knew that word) not to eat them? Was it wrong to not eat, and thereby waste, food when some people had none? On a practical note: if I didn’t eat them, what was I to do with them? The best solution seemed to be to give them to someone else, who would want to eat them; but who, in the small world of Stone Lane, would accept and eat them without asking questions and (despite my feelings, I had no wish to hurt hers) without risk of Miss Baines hearing about it?
Eventually, I went down to the bottom of my grandfather's long, sloping garden, beyond the shed, beyond the tall lines of runner beans and sweet peas, below the deep bank held up by old railway sleepers, out of view of the house and its neighbours. I burrowed deep into the thick privet hedge which separated the garden from a grazing dairy herd. There I dug a deep hole. Into the hole I counted out exactly half of the chocolate buttons, put back the displaced earth, then concealed the spot with scattered leaves and twigs. The other half of the packet I ate. Back in the house, I placed the empty wrapper in the kitchen rubbish bin.
In 1959 Miss Baines was, I estimate, somewhere in her sixties. She must, by now, be long past caring about the ungenerous spirit of a child to whom she caused no harm and tried to be friendly; but I shamefacedly apologise for it, anyway, to her memory.
07 July 2011
Temporary relief
About the reasons for closure of the Murdoch newspaper (sic) News of the World, I have no illusions: they are cynical, designed to limit damage and protect larger News International revenue streams from contamination by continuing revelations of wrongdoing by the rag.
About the meaningfulness of the closure I have no illusions either: I confidently expect a distastefully similar replacement to appear in very short order.
About the closure itself, however, I nevertheless feel at least temporary satisfaction. An open sewer through British public life has, however temporarily, been blocked. Good.
02 April 2011
Still worrying about those shades of grey...
I've received a lot of mail about my declared "shades of grey" ambivalence over outside military intervention in the Libyan civil war.
Geoff Powell comments “not in my name” – an honourable cry, which I joined many others in voicing at the time of the Iraq invasion (though with the caveat that, like Salman Rushdie, I could support action to protect the Kurds and Marsh Arabs from genocide).
Pauline Laybourn pointed out to me the deaths inflicted by the initial cruise missile attack on Libyan government air defenses in preparation for air interdiction. Another moral conscience driven point which I take seriously. This aspect comes down to a variant on (yet again...) the Foot's Trolley dilemma: when forced to make a choice between actively killing a smaller number and thereby saving many, or allowing the much larger number to die by our inaction, which should we do? (I say "a variant on Foot's Trolley" because there is an added dimension here ... the few are aggressors against the many, and have thus made a moral choice of their own.)
Zainab Talu takes the opposite tack, upbraiding me for my "moral squeamishness" in not stating clearly (as Julie Heyward does in another comment) that I am in favour of the intervention.
Well ... I am in favour of the intervention to protect the civilian population from massacre. Elsewhere I was more vocal than here in my impatience over delays in that intervention when it looked like protection might come too late. I thoroughly approve of it on basis. That doesn't, however, mean that I have no worries about it. It's very difficult, in practice, to separate humanitarian actions from broader political agendas. Already, there are signs that the industrialised west is tempted to go beyond protection in search of future advantage.
In his March briefing for the Oxford Research Group, Paul Rogers says:
“Although there was substantial support for initial coalition actions against Gaddafi’s forces, especially when they threatened civilians in Benghazi, the Libyan War is now developing into a much wider operation. It also seems likely that the more it becomes a matter of attempted regime termination by NATO forces, the less support there will be across the Arab world. Furthermore, it has been paralleled by suppression of dissent in countries where autocratic regimes have strong support from those very countries now seeking regime termination in Libya, the most notable example being Bahrain. Above all, NATO has now embarked on its second major out-of-area operation since the end of the Cold War following Afghanistan. What began being seen as a narrow but essential humanitarian military intervention seems unlikely to end there, and this may have consequences right across the region and also for the future of NATO.”
I hope we will finally do the right thing without rushing on into the wrong one; but I do fear that we will, yet again, have failed to learn.
- Paul Rogers, Libya, Bahrain and NATO. International Security Monthly Briefing 2011(2011-03).
- Salman Rushdie, A Liberal Argument For Regime Change, in Washington Post. 2002 Washington DC. p. A35.
09 December 2010
Marine observations
I've just read (on Unreal Nature's recommendation, from which I have copied the post title and for which thanks) a guest post at Foreign policy magazine's site.
It is written by a US Marine Corps veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan “and above all someone trying to find a healthy balance as a civilian once more”. There's a very great deal, including but by no means limited to the author's headline position, with which I profoundly disagree. There's also a great deal with which I can agree. But neither agreement nor disagreement have anything to do with why I, too, recommend reading it.
Everyone in the western liberal democracies should read it as an honourable example of an intelligent individual speaking unwanted blunt truths as he sees them not only to power but to a fellow citizenry who (as citizenries always do ... and that includes you and me, if we're honest) prefer hazily warm and comfortable myths.
USAmericans should read it in particular because it tells them things they don't want to know about their own society. Europeans (and perhaps also Australasians) should read it because it holds up a clear mirror in which to examine our own myths. Britons in particular should read it because it shows both how radically different are British and American outlooks in areas where we are often assumed to be similar ... and, at the same time, how very similar we are in things which we often like to imagine that we are different.
I'd like to make dozens of points based on, or in contention with, the content of the post ... but that would undermine my hope that you will go there and make up your own mind. And please, don't just read until you feel agreement or disagreement: read the whole thing, or you will have missed the point of going there at all.
21 November 2010
Son of "I am Google..."
I've just read "What digital literacies?", on Steve Wheeler's Learning with 'e's.
One of the digital literacies which he identifies is “Reusing/repurposing content”, which (given the trains of thought which I have been pursuing yesterday and today) linked in my mind to my two "I am Google" posts. (But the connection is mine and mine alone.)
For anything put up on the web, traditional copyright concerns are purely theoretical. Any material on this blog, for instance, could be copied and "reused" or "repurposed" by anybody else ... I'd be unlikely to even know about it, never mind have any realistic chance of doing anything about it. I don't have any problem with that ... I try to be punctilious about crediting my own reuse of others' work, but recognise that if I post something then the reality is as it is ... if I don't like it, I shouldn't post digital material.
But (this, if you were beginning to wonder, is the point): in the long run, both copyright and copyright law are, pragmatically at least, going to have to change. Both were invented in days when reproducing (and reusing or repurposing) were much more physically difficult. Laws of this kind can only really be enforced while their breach involves crossing a hurdle of some kind ... and these days there are no real hurdles to cross in breach of copyright.
Intellectual property remains important, both morally and economically ... but how the future will deal with it, I'm b*##*r*d if I know!
This is not an original thought, of course. The music industry has been grappling with it for decades, and one of the possible solution sets there has been provided by bands which treat downloadable music as a disposable hook into other, more controllable and financially activities or assets. Still, the situation is in flux and nobody knows which models will turn out to be stable and sustainable in the long run.
"Learned journals" have a similar problem: how to make use of the technology as an economic way to disseminate and capitalise upon content without losing control of it? The solution there makes the best of a bad job. If I want a copy of Pfning's Ferret wangling as a metacultural pursuit, (don't waste time looking it up – I invented and its author) I can either persuade an institution to purchase access or I can go to the journal in which it was published and pay to download a PDF copy ... but, either way, there is nothing beyond my own sense of things (and, of course, the number of people I know who have the slightest interest in ferret wangling) to stop me then providing copies to all and sundry. They rely on the fact that, by providing access, they minimise the growth of bootleg supply. The timing of DVD release and television network rights for films is similar ... hold onto the original cinema version long enough to maximise return, release legally purchasable copies soon enough to minimise the economic viability of piracy, then drop the DVD price for the same reason when television right kick in.
Back in education, which is what Steve Wheeler had in mind, it seems fairly clear that institutions which accept the free flow of information and content beyond their own cell wall (that's a biological metaphor, not a criminal one) through communal web reuse and repurpose are likely to do better than those who try to lock it up in their own VLN*. Maintaining miserly control involves costs and absorbs energy which could be better deployed in more positive ways. Any perceived loss in traditional terms is balanced by gain from the same process as material from elsewhere is reused and repurposed inward. Allowing your material to be accessed from elsewhere gives an institution kudos and reputation which has economic value of its own. And there are cross fertilisation benefits on both sides which probably swamp all other considerations. The only real benefit of guarding content accrues to those providers (institutional or commercial) who can provide an active, service based product which the client finds it more beneficial to buy than to duplicate.
None of which solves my agonising over digitisation of Jay Appleton ... but does provide a welcome alternative path down which to wander!
* VLN: Virtual Learning Environment
I am Google ... sort of (continued)
An interesting response to yesterday's "I am Google ... sort of" comes in a comment from AcerOne which has had me thinking further about the implications of copying a text for my own use. He compares my scanning of a printed text into digital form to [illegal] downloading from a file sharing site of music already purchased on physical media. I'm not sure that this is a true analogy in every way, although I do agree that the immediate (not extended) moral issue is the same.
I've just spent a while discussing this with a lawyer. Not professionally, I hasten to add: just chewing the fat with a friend who happens to be a lawyer (and not one with any specific experience of copyright law), as a way of trying out thoughts.
To some extent, what I say now in response to AcerOne is playing devil's advocate. Other parts I think I probably believe. I won't try to sort out the two at this point; I'm just having an exploratory dialogue with myself, using his words as a sounding board. In no way am I implying any judgment of AcerOne, for whom (and for whose moral sense) I have the greatest respect. What you are reading here is an internal monologue on my own outlook.
AcerOne: What difference does it make to anyone, the author included, if you also own a copy of the text in a digital format?
Well ... in practice, I think that depends upon circumstances. In the case of Appleton (the text I am currently digitising), perhaps none. If the text stays out of print, then my digitisation cannot cause any loss to Jay Appleton or his estate. Even if the text is reprinted, that remains true as long as I keep my digitised copy entirely for my own use. If, on the other hand, the text is later digitised and offered for sale in that form, I have arguably deprived the author or his estate of income from the digital copy which I might have purchased.
This becomes more acute, though not different in principle, if I digitise Spirin who is still very much in print but not available in electronic form. It becomes a very live issue if I digitise a book which is available as a purchasable electronic copy.
An analogy might be this. AcerOne is, amongst other things, a visual artist who currently has on show an exhibition of his paintings. He offers for sale both those paintings and prints of them. If I go to his show, photograph them, then make prints of the resulting photographs to hang on my wall, I very definitely feel that I have behaved shabbily. I should have bought his own prints – I have deprived him of the income which he would thus have made. If I take the same photographs and use them as illustrations in a lecture, on the other hand, I feel comfortable with that provided that I give details of source: I have not replaced his work, and may through publicising it contribute indirectly to his sales income. Whether it is legal or not is a different matter; I think it comes safely within "fair use", and my friendly lawyer (without wanting to be pinned down or quoted, of course) agrees.
AcerOne goes on...
“...i have on occasions used file-sharing websites to find music (both moral and copyright issues definitely breached). But [... ... ...] to download music i have already purchased and legitimately own; but on vinyl. [... ... ...] The thought of transferring it to my computer so that it can be played through my home system or on my iPod seems like a long and laborious task [...]So i have on occasions sourced and downloaded a digital version from file-sharing websites... Legally i have broken the law. But all i have done is chosen to take a simpler and far easier route to gaining the same outcome - a digital version of music i already own.”
There are several issues which occur to me here. The first is a technical one: the true analogy for my digitisation of a print text is, I think, not downloading a new copy[1] but the transfer from vinyl to computer file. And that prompts me to consider the fact that I routinely buy a CD which I then do not play: I immediately "rip" it to digital form and play it from an MP3 player because most of my musical listening is done on the move. I have done the same with such vinyl or tape as I cannot replace with CD. So, I realise, my concern of digitisation of a book is somewhat hypocritical when I have done the same with in excess of two thousand albums. (Ripping is, of course, so endemic and so universally enabled by mainstream software providers as to be an unstoppable fait accompli . That's not, on the other hand, the same thing as being morally right. Nevertheless, I personally feel morally comfortable with both my and AcerOne's digital duplication of our music sources. There are other philosophically problematic issues around use of a file sharing site ... but I'll not go there as I've already bitten off more that I can chew with this topic.)
The second issue is also technical, but in an important legal sense. AcerOne does not, in fact, own the music on his vinyl; nor I the music on my CDs. We own only the physical media upon which it is recorded, and have a licence to play the music (only for our own enjoyment at that; playing it for other people is, strictly speaking, breach of the licence). Similarly, when I buy a copy of Appleton's book I do not buy the content: only the physical paper and board construct within which my single copy is encoded. Calling again on the analogy of AcerOne's paintings: if I purchase one of his prints, I do not thereby own the image itself and have no right to reproduce it – the image remains the property of AcerOne.
On the other hand ... the legal copyright breach seems to lie not in reproduction but in "publishing". Going back to the technical breach of license when I play my CD to others (previous para), the issue is that legally I thereby "publish" the work to others. Software licences work on much the same basis, but make allowance for back up; my word processor, for instance, comes with a specific proviso that it can be copied for security back up purposes, and can be installed on more than one computer provided that it is only ever in use on one of them at the same time. By analogy, it would seem that photocopying[2] or digitising a book stays within the fence so long as nobody else then sees the copy. But then again ... flipping open the nearest book to hand at this moment, I find inside the following unambiguous words: “no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher" ... which seems pretty unambiguous.
I could go on ... but enough, already. My feeling remains that I am staying within "fair use" so far, but it's not a subject which I can afford to regard as cut and dried. For my own peace of mind it needs revisiting at intervals, and in particular every time I consider digitising a new text.
1. In my impecunious teens and student years, I regularly did deals with friends whereby one of us bought a vinyl album and the others made a tape cassette copy. Later, when my wife and I divorced amicably in our thirties, we solved the music problem by copying everything to tape cassette so that we each kept the whole collection. Both of these, it seems to me, are the true equivalents of file sharing. I wouldn't do it now, but it would be hypocritical of me to righteously condemn young people now who do it in the new ways which new technology makes available to them.
2. I do, in fact, have some photocopied texts. They were made in the days before digitisation. They were not made by me, but by the owners of print copies, as helpful gestures when I couldn't obtain a physical print copy of something to which I needed long term access. Who actually made them, however, is irrelevant here; my acceptance and retention of them is another blurring hypocrisy in the debate which I am having with myself over selfdigitisation.
20 November 2010
I am Google ... sort of
I am preparing a series of lectures on landscape imagery for next year, and find myself making frequent return to several books. Appleton's Experience of Landscape, for instance. Nash's Wilderness and the American mind. Spirin's The language of landscape.
As I go, I extract fragments for reference and/or quotation. Time was, I'd have hand written these on index cards; now I stick the book into a scanner and let OCR take the strain.
I'm also, of course, referring at the same time to numerous electronic sources – which is so much more convenient since, quite apart from instant searching, I just have to highlight, copy and paste ... or even "save page as" ... or, better still, just store a link to the page. I have, in my notes for this lecture, for example, links to recent posts by Ray Girvan (Old Park) and Julie Heyward (Instrumentality).
If only the printed texts were as instantly accessible in their entirety as the electronic sources.
Sometimes, of course, a printed text is also available in digital form. It's well worth my well, for something often used, to buy both forms: paper as definitive version, digital for flexible reference and quoting. But that's not possible for the above three examples.
As I scanned a paragraph today, it dawned on me that I am gradually and unintentionally compiling a fragmentary but increasingly complete digital copy of a book in this way.
How do I feel about this?
I take copyright very seriously. I would not knowingly do anything which in might in any perceivable way tend to undermine the author's income from the text. But it seems to me that as long as I keep the material solely for my on use, and no purchasable electronic version exists, I am not going beyond my own moral view of "fair use".
There is one difference between Appleton on one hand, Nash and Spirin on the other: Appleton is out of print. That is probably not a significant difference for any practical purpose ... but it feels different as a starting point. So, as of today, I have started deliberately scanning the whole chapter containing a section I need from Appleton, rather than just the section itself. When I have the whole lot, I'll combine it into one PDF file and bingo ... I will be my own miniature Google Books.
When I've done that, I'll consider what to do about the others.
- Jay Appleton, The Experience of Landscape. 1986, Hull: Hull University Press. 0859584615. [Originally 1975, London: Wiley. 0471032565.] [Most recent edition 1996, Chichester: Wiley. 0471962333 (hbk) or 047196235X (pbk).] [Now out of print.]
- Roderick Nash, Wilderness and the American mind. 1982, New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. 0300029101 (pbk.). [originally 1967]
- Anne Whiston Spirin, The language of landscape. 1998, New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. 0300077459, 9780300082944 (pbk).
23 October 2010
Wikileaks
I don't have anything original to say on the subject, and certainly nothing worth stopping to listen to, but it's necessary (in however small and insignificant way) to stand and be counted ... so ... I applaud what Wikileaks has done today.
There is never any such thing as an unmitigated good but, despite all freely acknowledged reservations and messy grey moral fogs, I do believe that releasing of truth is, in this case at least, the best available route through ambient evils.
| Wikileaks | ORG: Recording Casualties of Armed Conflict |
...and, while I'm about it...
| SIPRI |
05 August 2010
And the leopard shall lie down with the kid
A chance synchronicity ... on Tuesday, Jim Putnam's TTMF mentioned one of Edward Hicks’ sixty plus (the exact number escapes my memory at the moment) paintings in his Peaceable kingdom series. This morning, I went to a lecture on biblical imagery, and up popped a Hicks Peaceable kingdom painting – exactly the same one, in fact (this one, in the Worcester Museum of Art).
Hicks was a Quaker. I may not share his beliefs, either religious or sociopolitical, but I do have to admire them in their own terms and time. I can say the same of today's lecturer; her interpretation of the subject is one I cannot, and will never, share; but to hear the honesty, conviction and passion in her treatment of it was a real pleasure.
Looking gloomily around the world, as Jim does, there are more places than I can count where it would be nice to see the leopard lying down with the kid.
A lifetime ago, I was horrified to see another Quaker die because his beliefs made him play the part of the kid while the leopard remained an irremediably obligate carnivore. I would say that he chose to die rather than betray his beliefs; he would no doubt have said that he chose to live by them and the other did not. Sometimes the kid wins this sort of confrontation, but usually not; Ghandi won in a larger sense though not in the smaller one most of us would value more. I lack the courage to be a kid, but it's what we really need.
12 May 2010
An act of betrayal
I started the new year with an act of betrayal.
I passionately believe in the principle of open source software. I ardently support the UN's support for it as the future of world development. Yet, in January of this year, when I decided that I need a web book with more RAM and a faster processor than the Asus eeePC which had served me well for nearly two years, I ... abandoned Debian Linux along with the Asus and installed Windows XP on its replacement.
Why?
Two answers, in essence. One is the availability of particular software tools; the other is simplicity. I'll deal with them the other way round, taking simplicity first.
Matt Revel (who, unlike me, enthusiastically keeps the faith intact) wrote a fascinating post, a couple of days back along, about conversion of an old spec Neoware thin client machine into an Ubuntu Linux server. Read it; it's wonderful. I used to do a lot of that sort of thing, back when computers were large boxes with plenty of space inside and visibly modular components. I still do it with the one remaining tower system I possess (my desktop network server and archive sentinel) but when I look inside the cramped innards of a laptop or smaller I quail; I back away, feeling old and hamfisted.
Reading Matt's post, I learned a number of things, and have taken away a number of ideas. One of them is the idea that I might, perhaps, be able to replace the 810Mbyte hard disk in an elderly but still beautiful Toshiba Libretto 50 (75MHz, 16Mb RAM, running Windows Me) with a flash card. But none of them include returning to Linux for a machine upon which I regularly rely for my core activities.
The truth is, I am not only too old and too short of time now for that sort of hardware wizardry ... I also cannot face the sort of time which Linux requires at the software end. Just as I used to fiddle around inside computers, so I fiddled around getting the best out of command line software shells ... but not any more. The sad fact is that when I install or remove a new program (something I typically do twice a day on average), Windows just installs or removes it, wham, in one go while Linux requires (in return for its many superior qualities) that I assemble several packages (often from different sources) and coördinate them. I do it on two machines (one 32 bit, one 64 bit), so that I have access to the greater efficiency and quality of Linux when it really matters, for particular purposes ... but the rest of the time I use Windows
This is not true of all open source software. Having made the decision to slob out in the flabby upholstered comfort of Windows, I can and do use (and promote the use of) OpenOffice (this post is being written in its word processor), Firefox (I use five different browsers, but Firefox is first choice 95% of the time), Thunderbird (since I discovered the terrible vulnerability of my archives in Outlook) – and each of them arrives as a one click Windows installer. All of those applications I just mentioned, by the way, are superb. I have (legal, paid for) copies of the Microsoft equivalents, simply because in my lines of work I have to operate within coöperative environments based on them as standards, and I must check that every document works exactly as expected within those environments ... but for my own working tools, chosen from preference, I go to the open equivalents: not just out of ideology but because they seem to me better.
So much for simplicity. Now for availability of particular software tools. It is an unfortunate fact that some software is not available under every operating system. Usually one can find equivalents that are just as good, or sufficiently good for one's purposes ... but not always. The deal breaking killer apps will vary from person to person, and from context to context, but for me on a machine which is predominantly used for serious volumes of writing on the hoof, there was just one. Ironically, it was an open source utility from SourceForge which emulates a Unix facility: AllChars, which gives Windows a quick and easy way to instantly type the characters which don't appear on a standard keyboard.
AllChars won't be essential to everyone. I have a frequent need to type the Euro symbol, the a+e ligature in words line encyclopædia, accented vowels, and so on. Some people happily use memorised numeric Unicode combinations to do this. The key sequence 2248[Alt-X], for example, yields (in most but not all modern Windows applications) the mathematical character ≈ which is also very useful to me ... but it takes five keystrokes and memorisation of that numeric code every time I enter that character. So long as I can remember the number, that's quicker than hunting though special character tables ... but still painful if I have to use the character often, or if I need to remember more than a couple of the codes. Life is, to be blunt, too short.
There are word processors which incorporate quick and easy ways to do this. Honourable mentions go to NotaBene (built from the ground up as the world's best tool for academic work involving multilingual text) and WordPerfect (in my opinion the best general purpose word processor available). In OpenOffice's word processor and spreadsheet there is an extension which adds the same utility. In each case, the sequence to access a particular character involves a master key (F6 in NotaBene, Ctrl-W in WordPerfect, a user selected key in the OO extension) plus a mnemonic pair of characters such as ~= for that ≈ symbol , for example, or ae for the ligature in encyclopædia. This same principle is used in AllChars – but it works across any program ( though the trade off is a narrower range of available characters).
Linux does allow addressing of these mnemonic pairs, and there are international keyboard layouts which allow modifier keys to accent vowels in particular. I noted a while back the availability of these options on the Linux variant Asus eeePC ... but also the fact that I couldn't find any way of making them instantly available on reboot without repeating the keyboard selection steps.
To be honest, life is too short for either four digit codes or repeated keyboard selections when I am offered a lazy alternative which works. Especially when (as now, as I write this) I have opened my carry along vade mecum machine in a transport terminus for ten minutes writing before packing it away again and boarding the next leg of my journey. AllChars is that alternative, and it is only available under Windows. And that one fact was what finally decided my return from Linux to Windows when I upgraded my netbook.
Having made the decision, however, I joyously returned to other software for which I had with equanimity accepted substitutes whilst using the Linux eeePC. WordPerfect, for example. I love OpenOffice Writer, and would always use it in preference to Microsoft Word; in fact I use it in preference to anything else for many, many things; but when I settle into heavy duty and complex writing over a long period, WordPerfect saves me enough time to make a significant difference. WordPerfect is not available under Linux, and I did without it without complaint; but now that I'm back on a Windows platform, I have welcomed the return of WordPerfect with open arms.
Four and a half months in, I still feel guilty about my act of betrayal, abandoning an open source operating system for a commercial one from Microsoft. This is the first time I have felt able to publicly talk about it. But, in honesty, I don't see myself going back until my reasons for it become redundant. May Matt forgive me.
20 February 2010
Less food for more future
In a comment to my Food for a future post (and the article from which it is extracted), Geoff Powell comments that “Eating less would help”.
He's right, of course.
So would discarding less. In Eire, more than a third of a tonne of edible food is thrown away per person per year; in the UK, more than one tonne; in the US, over a hundred tonnes.
Reduction in both consumption and waste fall into what I called in the article "the blue corner". Taken together, blue corner strategies in the developed world could reduce global food requirements by 40-90% (depending on definitions and assumptions) . Even just halving waste and overconsumption in the US and EU would significantly increase the net food supply in a world where one in three go hungry.
10 January 2010
The plank in my own eye...
[Oh dear ... this has turned out to be one of those sickeningly preachy ones, I'm afraid. I've dithered over deleting it, but I do believe every word of it ... so, here it is for better or worse.]
In yesterday's post ("Same intersection, different streets"), Thinking through my fingers confronts a morally and philosophically knotty problem: where to draw the line between asserting and defending different human rights, which they conflict with one another. I don't have any answers in this area; but it's certainly important to strive for them.
It's a staple of philosophy 101 that the concept of a "human right" can have no objectively absolute validity; human rights are what we humans (or a subject of us) agree, at any particular time, to assert and/or confer ... and defend. Their definition changes with time and geography and culture. That doesn't mean that I deny their importance; on the contrary, I very passionately assert it. It does mean that they cannot ever be taken for granted.
One crucial pitfall, it seems to me, is confusing individuals, societies, religions or states with each other. Societies and states are not moral, regardless of their religious and/or political philosophies. They are, at best, amoral. It is individuals who make moral choices, and a society is simply the sum total of all moral choices made by the individuals within it.
A question picked up and offered by TTMF from another source is:
“If I'm demanding that Muslims respect our right to freedom of expression, do they have a right to demand that I respect their debasement of women – which is often brutal and disgusting, especially those who've been raped. Is my argument that these extreme attitudes are perversions of the Holy Quran good enough?”
That illustrates the confusion. "Muslims" (or "Christians", or...) do not demand or respond to demands: individuals do. I do firmly and completely believe that debasement of women (like the debasement of anyone) is abhorrent. I do firmly and completely believe that debasement of the Quran to support such abuse is abhorrent ... as are the many debasements of the Bible by Christian groups too numerous to mention. But to condemn Moslems (or Christians) en bloc, because their beliefs are perverted by some, is simply a perversion in its turn: a new excuse to demonise the other, rather than take responsibility for confronting the wrong.
Individually, despite laws designed to prevent it, many women in western secular Christian societies are often oppressed by the relationships within which they live, and by the failure of society, state or individuals to do anything effective about it. Ask any woman in an abusive relationship, or in a refuge. (And it works the other way, too; I'm trying to keep this manageable, but battered men in abusive relationships are equally badly served by "our" much vaunted human rights.) When did you (or I) last personally act to end or alleviate the misery of an abused spouse, partner or child?
I regard the US habit of electrocuting or otherwise judicially murdering criminals to be bestial ... but its not that long since Britain and Ireland did the same, so I'm throwing no stones. It's not that long since women were disenfranchised in the western liberal democracies either. We have short memories – and we all have a convenient knack for ignoring how far we fall short of our own ideals, too.
Three decades ago, in the context of the cold war, Chomsky and Herman pointed out that it is easy and cheap to criticise the sins of our enemies, much less so to point out the same defects in our friends or ourselves. It's a point which remains just as true now. I don't suggest that we should ignore denial of human rights in other societies until we have eradicated them from our own; but we are not likely to be successful there unless we are equally (and simultaneously) clear eyed here.
Wherever a human being is treated in a way which you or I would not wish to be treated ourselves, and we do not protest or act, you or I are guilty and complicit. It's no use blaming Islam (or Christianity, or Nazism, or Communism, or...): blame the person or persons who commit the crime and the person or persons (that's you, and me) who let it happen – anywhere. If you know a Moslem, or a Christian, or an Atheist, don't judge her/him by that label: ask yourself whether s/he or he as an individual is acting in a way that you consider moral. Then ask yourself, honestly and without pity, if you are behaving better. Then you can enter into a dialogue which deals with reality. Confront that person's actions, or make them a model for confronting your own, or point out your common failings, or seeking to build outward upon your shared concern for moral action, but don't make things worse by the cheap and shoddy sideways shuffle of evil onto a label.
Demonising the other simply creates more evil, not less. I offer you two tangential quotations which, it seems to me, have relevance here and gave me pause for fruitful thought.
The first is from a song, Prime time, by Don McLean in the 1970s:
“We had to burn the city 'cause they wouldn't agree
That things go better with democracy!”
The other was written yesterday, an hour or so before TTMF's post, by Simon of Simon says:
“...Chagall's crucifixes ... refuse to let me off the hook as a viewer. And yet they do so with a loving touch.”
- Noam Chomsky and Edward.S Herman, The Washington connection and Third World fascism. 1979, Boston: South End Press. 0896080919 and 0896080900
16 December 2009
Global security after the war on terror
“the responses required to counter the potentially disastrous consequences of the wealth-poverty divide interacting with an ecologically constrained global system are truly radical. ... ... ... The war on terror has been a disaster, but recognising its failure might at least help us develop our understanding of global security in a manner appropriate to the 21st Century.”
- Paul Rogers, Global security after the war on terror, an ORG briefing paper. 2009, Oxford: Oxford Research Group.
09 December 2009
Pilate asked: What is truth?
Yesterday my brother sent me, without comment, a Discovery Channel News link referencing the speculatively constructed and partially animated version of Tiger Woods' automotive mishap. This morning, I found that Thinking through my fingers takes this same video as the starting point for a consideration of where our opportunities for accessing “true” news are heading. (Looking back, I see that TTMF referenced the same video a week earlier; but I didn't pick up on it.)
On the face of it, a very obviously constructed fiction (and one in which Woods, and his wife, and even the physics of real life movement, are scarcely recognisable) should be of little concern to anyone except the Woods family and their lawyers. It exists in the same intellectual space as Ice age 3: the dawn of the dinosaurs about which I grumbled recently. But that is disingenuous; the reality is that very few news consumers give much critical consideration to their sources, and very many make only blurred distinctions between fiction and nonfiction.
On the other hand, to start crying that the dividing line is being eroded between imaginative interpretation and objective reportage is equally disingenuous. I doubt that there has ever been such a distinction; certainly I cannot remember a time when it existed outside the platonic ideal in the minds of its champions (of which I, for the record, am one – if not a very active or heroic one). "Briefing against" is at east as old as China's "warring states period (476-221 BCE); eighteenth and nineteenth century press in Europe and the Americas offered political commentary skewed and invented to a degree unrivalled today; and Ray Girvan recently offered, over at JSBlog, an example of a 19th century "tabloid smear" against ordinary people. Truth has always been an elusive, provisional, partial thing, and finding even a worthwhile approximation to it has always been a process of determined exploration and detective work.
That last sentence is where TTMF starts: that "truth" (of even the blurred and provisional variety) can only be found (even by those actively seeking it) if somebody is somewhere telling it. Or, more accurately, if enough sources genuinely trying to tell it can be found and compared.
What concerns me even more is that as the volume of information sources multiplies, the fragmentarily "true" is ever harder to find. Whether or not disinformation is proliferating faster than information is a moot point about which we can all argue forever on the head of a pin, but is irrelevant. As the haystack grows exponentially, the pins will become harder to find even if they proportionally keep pace.
I don't suggest that anything be done about this, even if that were possible (which it is not): I would deplore central censorship of dis/information flow even more. But I do dispute the widespread idea that ever greater flow of information form every greater numbers of sources is synonymous with "more truth". The vital importance of critical thinking by consumers about sources and their content increases as a direct function of information volume.
I realise, belatedly, that this is little more than a rehash of my Whither democracy post, almost two years ago ... ah, well; “I grow old ... I grow old”* ... at least I stopped short of requoting Lem!
- T S Eliot, "The love song of J Alfred Prufrock", line 120, in Prufrock and other observations. 1917, London: The Egoist Ltd.
23 November 2009
A vivid view of things
It's good to see VIVID back after a lull.
Anyone who agreed with, disagreed with, or otherwise reacted to my Soul searching posts (17th and 27th September) may be interested in readin Animals and us: an off-planet view of a species in denial.
“We know that the alien will quickly discover what we are doing; and, assuming a sensitive disposition, will likely reel in dismay at the kinds of things that go on to assess how much of these various substances must be injected, smothered, rubbed or otherwise forced into the flesh, eyes and organs of animals to make them blind, paralysed, crippled or dead, and thereby to enable us to rate the substances as toxic or safe.”

