Random Piercings

Computer time dilation, or a lifetime of Moore's law

pierce — Wed, 11 Aug 2010 04:43:33 +0000

A friend offered a six-year-old computer to our church, and I jokingly asked him what that was in human years. He shot back, "140." As Neo says, whoa.

If six equals 140, then I've owned at least one computer for almost half a millennium and I've bought or built a new one about every human lifetime. I hesitate to ask how long my friend, who wrote a thesis on mathematical psychology somewhere in the mists of time, has been around these things.

When I started buying computers for myself, in 1992, the Packard Bell I picked up was $1,200 if I recall correctly (I got it from Sears, maxing out what was also my first credit card). The second computer I got (in 1996) was $1,800, mostly because of a big honkin' 17" monitor (the Holstein-decorated boxes at my new New Orleans pad clued my dad into the fact that I'd blown almost all of my separation pay on the thing). The third computer I built myself in 1999, using $1,800 in parts. The fourth (2001) was $1,200 in parts so I could pass most of the existing system to my wife. The fifth (2004) was also about $1,200 in parts, mostly a dual-core 64-bit processor and two 200 GB hard drives. The sixth was a laptop for $550 in 2007. The seventh was a microtower for $360 last year. (The last two were Office Depot purchases, so I paid for people in red shirts constantly asking me if I was finding what I was looking for, but time was a factor and home-building wasn't an option.)

That list doesn't include the Tandy Model III my dad brought home on loan one summer that had Logo on it, the Commodore 64 he bought a few years later that allowed me to run up a $180 Compuserve bill playing a primitive multiplayer game, the Amstrad PC5120 HD10 he got mostly to shut me up (and then monopolized it when I taught him how to track attendance at his high school on dBase III+) or the outrageously expensive laptop ($2,200!) he got me for graduating from college. Nor does it include my crazy Cajun neighbor's Heathkit H8 and string of Commodore Amigas (any one of which likely represents a pinnacle in computing for their time) that I played with any time said neighbor would let me.

What amazes me: The processor has gone from an 80386DX running at 33 MHz (which I bought specifically to avoid the crappy, hamstrung SX model) to a lower-tier Athlon X2 64 running at 2.4 GHz; the memory from 512 KB to 3 GB; the hard drive from 30 MB to 640 GB; the monitor from a CGA 13" CRT with 320 x 200 resolution to a 720p 20" LCD with 1280 x 720. (And the last computer isn't my biggest and best, even.) Oh, an the price has dropped 75 percent. It's like having learned to drive on a 1950 Ford Coupe (after playing with a Model A) then ending up in a Focus (with an older self-customized Mustang in the garage) two decades later—except it took Ford 80 years to make that leap and the price almost surely hasn't dropped to a quarter from the Model A.

(I only wish my programming prowess had kept up the pace, but I focused on getting good using applications from 1994 to 2007ish. I have a lot of catching up to do.)

As much of a pain in the ass and time suck as computers can be, to say nothing of the demands of periodic obsolescence, I feel blessed to have lived in these times. Moore's law has been one hell of a ride!

Posted via email from 300 Words

Demands for Rigidly Defined Areas of Doubt and Uncertainty

pierce — Sat, 19 Jun 2010 08:09:47 +0000

So many of the objections to Sam Harris’s proposal that science can
have answers to moral questions remind me of the line from
Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy where representatives of the
Amalgamated Union of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries and Other
Thinking Persons demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and
uncertainty. (http://hitch14.tripod.com/chapter_25.htm) What
philosophers (and the religious) often resist is not scientific
advancement, but encroachment. (Scientists, by and large, either
object based on their training or because they don’t want the
responsibility inherent in moral statements.)

Philosophy may suffer from the same “reality problem” (my term) that
Massimo Pigliucci asserts mathematics, that its statements may be
“objectively true” without constituting “empirical facts.”

The problem with this isn’t that philosophy can’t make statements
about the real world because of its place relative to this divide, but
the assertion of its privilege to bridge the gap in one direction
while denying science the ability to do it in reverse. This strikes me
as very similar to the common refrain of the religious that science
can’t make statements about the truth or falsehood of religious
assertions while making statements about the truth or falsehood of
scientific statements. Of course, we should all be very, very used to
religion allowing itself special privileges; that its close cousin
philosophy might do the same is unsurprising.

All that aside, one has to wonder if some of scientists’ reluctance to
admit moral influence comes from its history and the unfortunate
results of some practitioners’ (and proto-practitioners’) hubris, not
to mention the misuse of science by some as justification for terrible
injustices. The rise of science didn’t (and still hasn’t, sadly) mean
the end of hate, irrationality, injustice or want, though you can
hardly fault enthusiasts’ extrapolation from the increase in knowledge
to a bright and shining future. Nor can you really fault skeptics’ and
deniers’ (and those are very different groups) extrapolation in the
other direction. Both are very human acts, if unrealistic.

As is this reaction to Harris’s contention that there might be
scientific answers to moral questions.

I find the assertion that science (or empirical fact) can’t answer
moral questions just as ludicrous as an assertion that science can
answer all moral questions (which I don’t see Harris making). That
there will be insoluble problems and that there will be conditional
answers should be taken for granted, as their absence would be
unprecedented; that it could either have widespread or little
applicability are certainly possibilities to be entertained.

Pigliucci’s question of whether Harris would accept a scientific
answer in favor of corporal punishment (or female subjugation) is moot
and a mirror of his misrepresentation of Harris’s contention that
moral relativism is the default position of many a Western
intellectual. On the first, Harris’s acceptance or denial of such a
result would not impact its scientific basis at all, nor would anyone
else’s; if the United Nations tomorrow adopted a resolution stating
that the sun revolves around the earth wouldn’t make it so, and one
man’s rejection of an answer produced by a method he endorses says
nothing about that method. And it says nothing about the applicability
of the method; it merely accuses the proponent of being a potential
hypocrite.

On the second, we have to realize that there is a significant
difference between personal reactions and intellectual stances. To
condemn human sacrifice as inherently immoral in an anthropology
thesis would probably be a pretty good way to postpone your doctorate
indefinitely, whether or not your adviser was personally repulsed by
such activities, unless you followed the dictates of academia and
removed that line; to assert that the universe was created in six days
six-thousand-and-change years ago ought to be a good way to fail any
cosmology test in existence. The main difference between the two is
that the second is a “scientific” question, while the first is
“moral”.

Finally, the implicit (and sometimes explicit) fear that society will
mindlessly follow whatever science or its proponents dictate is
possibly one of the most unjustified things I’ve ever seen. It’s
similar to the “rational actor” fiction that has made so many theories
of human thoughts and actions so laughably incorrect. We act
rationally right up to the point where the forces that produce
irrational behavior become stronger than the reason-promoting ones.
That much of our actions are rational or irrational but not survival
limiting is merely a reflection of the evolutionary fitness of these
actions for enough people that our species can survive, and we should
not lose sight of the fact that those same behaviors could spell our
doom if conditions change and they become deleterious. As they may
very well already be.

Posted via email from 300 Words

On bigotry, writ innocent and unintentional

pierce — Tue, 15 Jun 2010 05:59:34 +0000

One, if you’re not reading Boing Boing (http://boingboing.net), you really should. It’s a group blog that grew out of an underground magazine (or ‘zine). If you don’t find something of interest in a week, you can shoot me in the buttock with a toy bow and arrow of your choice, it’s that good. It may not be the only worthwhile ‘zine to make the transition to online, but it’s hard to argue it isn’t the most worthwhile.

Two part A: the backstory. In case you missed it, the New York Times continued its practice of balancing out the good journalism it does with stupid shit by publishing a “Findings” item by John Tierney that took the “daring” stand that biological differences in intelligence could very well be to blame for differences in representation of women in the higher echelons of science. The justification this time was that on certain standardized tests there seem to be more men than women in the extreme right tail of the bell curve; that is, there are more massively smart men than massively smart women, so shut up and let nature work uninhibited.

Two part B: the incident. One of Boing Boing’s contributers wrote a post about Tierney’s article that collected parts of four woman scientists’ reactions to said article. They dismantled his tiresome tripe into the steaming little bits it deserved to be in, from the faux daring that those espousing especially hideworn bullshit seem to like adopting, to the absolute uselessness of the specifically mentioned SAT test for identifying intelligence. (No one pointed out one of the few things I know about psychometrics, the study of testing: tests designed to test normal people suck at properly placing people outside of the norm; so if my IQ is 125 and yours is 135, the Stanford-Binet test could put us equal or at a distance greater than 10 points, errors it’s far less likely to make if the IQs are 95 and 105. We’ll talk about the several problems with the SAT and Stanford-Binet, standardized testing and psychometrics itself another time.)

Two part C: the awful realization. The contributor published her post, but then made a startling realization: in a post excoriating bigotry, she’d managed to put together a glaringly one-sided collection aside from their shared gender. And she wrote an explanation both graceful and edifying, included below.

—–boing boing post—–

What I got wrong about women in science

from Boing Boing

by Maggie Koerth-Baker

3 people liked this

In the comments section of my post last Friday on women in science, a couple people were confused by the idea that bigotry and discrimination could be something done, for lack of a better word, accidentally … even subconsciously. I can understand why that’s confusing. Most of us were raised understanding that discrimination was a bad thing, done by bad people who thought that they were superior to the people they discriminated against. It’s logical to look at the way we learn about discrimination and say, “That doesn’t describe me, so I’m OK.”

The truth, sadly, is a bit more complicated.

Good people—people who aren’t supremacists of any sort—can and do act in ways that support systemic discrimination. We do this, not because we’re full of hate, but because we’re full of other lessons we learned as kids … things like, “Girl stuff isn’t as cool” or “people of that race aren’t like me, and that’s bad.” We might not cosign those ideas if they were expressed directly, but they can still quietly influence the way we act. And, if we happen to have been born into a non-minority category, we have the privilege of not even noticing when those old lessons direct us to do things that discriminate—because, from our point of view, the world still looks fair.

Case in point: That post on women in science, itself. Several hours after I hit “publish”, I realized that I’d managed to put together a panel on diversity made up of nothing but white people.

I didn’t set out to do that. But it happened, nonetheless. And it still furthered discrimination, by making it appear as if there aren’t women of color scientists worth talking to, and by implying that their perspective on the issue wouldn’t be any different from a white woman scientist’s. Neither of which is true. Without intending to, I left out the people who didn’t look like me. And because I have the privilege of seeing myself reflected in the media often enough, I didn’t notice the point of view that was missing until after I’d already published the story.

I’m writing about this now with the hope that it makes it more clear how discrimination happens, even in situations without big, evil villains. Sometimes, people with the privilege to not think about diversity don’t, and they make decisions that leave out people not like them. When that same situation happens over and over and over, the people who don’t look like the privileged end upmarginalized. It’s simple. And, frankly, it’s a lot scarier than big, evil villains, because it’s harder to change. In the future, I’m going to try harder to think past my own privilege. And, whether your privilege is based on gender, race, wealth, sexuality, or culture … I hope this post will remind you to do the same.

Image courtesy Flickr user fireflythegreat, via CC

—–end boing boing post—–

Three: the moral. We can all easily recognize and publicly abhor overt bigotry when it’s Trent Lott’s post hoc endorsement of Strom Thurmond’s segregationist campaign or even Don Imus’s blisteringly unthinking “nappy headed hos” comment about the Rutgers Un
iversity women’s basketball team (and, boy, is there ever a metric crapload of examples for just about any minority you care to recognize; these two just came to mind first). People even do a pretty good job of it when they’re in the majority but think about the statement or situation a little.

But when you’re going through life and thinking “I’m going to put together some scientists’ statements about this idiocy” or even “I’m going to invite kids to my child’s birthday party” it is a hell of a lot harder without someone pointing it out. And the reason is easy to see: most people who do this aren’t bigots, by any useful definition of the term. There is no intent and it would be unlikely that a thoughtful, mindful action would produce such a result.

Hopefully most of us have stood on the minority side and felt (or tried to feel) what it’s like to look at some grouping and realize there’s nobody there outside the majority, at least as an intellectual exercise if not in reality, or to hear someone casually dismiss a minority as unimportant or nonexistent.

Too often the reaction to pointing out this sort of unintentional bigotry is some version of “they didn’t mean it that way” (usually with a helping of “get over it” or “toughen up”). It’s often entirely true and almost always beside the point. That people mindlessly make decisions or say things or act in ways that perpetuate bigotry is bad enough; it may be worse when they try to rationalize or minimize it. Far better to react like this, and say “Yes, I did wrong without meaning to.” The call to learn from the mistake has the potential to turn it into a net positive, and we should all aim for that.

(Before anybody gets the pitchforks to “encourage” me to get off my high horse: I’m guilty of this, maybe moreso than most people. I am, after all, judgmental and critical and obstinate and blunt, plus probably more traits that make my stated goal of mindfulness so damned hard to achieve even briefly. I can round people up into a pen and brand them with the best cowboys that ever strapped on spurs, and I can give you chapter and verse to justify the corraling and the singeing. I can only hope that when I am called out on it, I can recognize my error and make half as good an explanation as Maggie did here.)

Posted via email from 300 Words

If you've done nothing wrong, of course the government won't imprison you

pierce — Mon, 17 May 2010 02:11:28 +0000

This is astounding, and not in a remotely good way. I know we
occasionally get crap like this from some of the fringes of Congress
(usually the House), but when two powerful and senior senators propose
absolutely gutting the protections from tyrannical government that we
have, we have reached a sad state. So much for Obama’s election and the
Democratic (so-called) majorities in both houses pulling us back from
the road to fascism.

Please spread this far and wide. No one, whether conservative, liberal,
libertarian—hell, anything but authoritarian, fascist and Nazi—should
allow this the least chance to pass. Call, write, e-mail, send carrier
pigeons to and otherwise let your congressmen know where you stand on
this.

Sent to you by Pierce via Google Reader: Aww, who needs those pesky
principles of justice anyway? via Pharyngula on 5/16/10

Have you heard about the Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and
Prosecution Act?

Meanwhile, the bill recently introduced by Joe Lieberman and John
McCain — the so-called “Enemy Belligerent Interrogation, Detention and
Prosecution Act” — now has 9 co-sponsors, including the newly elected
Scott Brown. It’s probably the single most extremist, tyrannical and
dangerous bill introduced in the Senate in the last several decades,
far beyond the horrific, habeas-abolishing Military Commissions Act. It
literally empowers the President to imprison anyone he wants in his
sole discretion by simply decreeing them a Terrorist suspect –
including American citizens arrested on U.S. soil. The bill requires
that all such individuals be placed in military custody, and explicitly
says that they “may be detained without criminal charges and without
trial for the duration of hostilities against the United States or its
coalition partners,” which everyone expects to last decades, at least.
It’s basically a bill designed to formally authorize what the Bush
administration did to American citizen Jose Padilla — arrest him on
U.S. soil and imprison him for years in military custody with no
charges.

If this bill passes, may I suggest that, since it does undermine the
rule of law and does great damage to the republic, that the first
persons charged under its provisions be the despicable McCain and
Lieberman? Won’t they be surprised!

Of course, since we do respect the rule of law, I suggest that everyone
write to their congresspeople and tell them that you oppose this bill.
Save McCain and Lieberman from the fate of Danton and Robespierre!
Read the comments on this post…
Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to Pharyngula using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your
favorite sites

Woman Uses iPhone App to Get Pregnant

pierce — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 20:22:03 +0000

Is it that tracking one’s cycles is that hard (or inconvenient), or
that iPhones (and other app-ready phones) make it that easy though
ubiquity and programmability?
This sort of ties in with an app idea I’ve just had: Something to read
the somewhat complex Excel file where I’ve outlined my day in
excruciating (for me) detail, including everyday schedules and special
ones for days with meetings, appointments, trips and such, and display
a nice, big bit of text telling me what I should be doing (with
color-coded background), how long I’ve got left to do it, and what’s
next. Maybe my next 24 hours in a sidebar. This should be doable, and
I’m sure if I had an iPhone and a captive hacker it could be done.
Heck, I’m thinking of using it as a way for me to learn Flash doing
something useful. But is the utility in it doing something hard, or in
being available almost all the time?

Sent to you by Pierce via Google Reader: Woman Uses iPhone App to Get
Pregnant via Mashable! by Brenna Ehrlich on 1/25/10

After four years of infertility, all it took was a simple download for
30-year-old Lena Bryce to get pregnant, making her the proud mother of
Britain’s very first “iPhone baby.”

Last week we learned that your iPhone can save your life, this week, it
turns out that it can create life as well. Bryce, who desperately
wanted a child, told The Sun: “It began to weigh heavily on us. We were
considering IVF and adoption when [my husband] Dudley gave me the
iPhone for my 30th. I typed in ‘get pregnant’ and downloaded five apps.”

The young wife chose The Free Menstrual Calendar [iTunes Link], which
highlighted in bright pink her most fertile day. She got pregnant two
months after downloading the app, and gave birth on the exact day that
it predicted.

While congrats are in order for the Bryce family, the whole deal is
kind of a head-scratcher. Was it really necessary to download an app in
order to conceive? One would think that a trip to the doctor would
yield the same results. Regardless, the free app was certainly cheaper
than a consult with a fertility doctor, and most likely cut down on
time spent in the waiting room, reading outdated copies of Highlights.
So I guess there’s that.

Tags: iphone, iphone apps, Mobile 2.0, trending

Things you can do from here:
- Subscribe to Mashable! using Google Reader
- Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your
favorite sites

Boilin'

pierce — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 03:38:13 +0000

On fall foliage and the joys of being there

pierce — Mon, 12 Oct 2009 21:04:24 +0000

XKCD, my favorite web comic ever (though DM of the Rings comes a close second), has a great panel on being there vs. manipulating photos:

And I could replace you with older pictures of you, from back when you looked happy.

As usual with XKCD, the kicker is in the alt-text (seen here as a caption).

WaPo Editorial Cartoon Satire on Family Guy

pierce — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:27:22 +0000

WaPo Editorial Cartoon Satire on Family Guy

Stewie and Brian in a Tom Toles world.

The Science of Why Torture Doesn't Work : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

pierce — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:03:31 +0000

The problem, he says, is that stress hormones actually make it less likely that someone subject to abuse can accurately recall information, so that such abuse ends up “destroying the very memories they’re supposed to recover.” And it can even result in false memories taking the place of real memories – and the person being abused not being able to distinguish between them.

via scienceblogs.com

Just like I have trouble believing that the economics of death row vs. life imprisonment aren’t going to abolish the death penalty, I have little hope that science will be persuasive enough to convince torture fans that it doesn’t work, is never a good idea and is, in fact, a moral corrosive.

Posted via web from Pierce’s posterous

Objectivity as opinionlessness or as self-discipline

pierce — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:16:37 +0000

Comment from Grant Buckler on “Is transparency the new objectivity? 2 visions of journos on social media”

If objectivity means journalists not having opinions, it’s obviously neither possible nor desirable. If it means not twisting the facts to support those opinions, it is possible and desirable.

via niemanlab.org

Today seems to be a good day for people saying smart things about journalism.

Posted via web from Pierce’s posterous