Tag Archives: rant

And here we go again, GIC attempt 2: Electric Boogaloo

So yeah, as some of you who may be following me elsewhere probably know I had another of those wonderful GIC appointments scheduled last month, and again they managed to reschedule it … thus making it a 100% reschedule rate so far.  This time they did it by calling and leaving a message which I picked up on the train at about 5 hours notice from the appointment, which at least gave me the ability to hop off at Preston and loop back to Lancs for an afternoon of work.

This did however leave me in a stompy foul mood and just filled with apocalyptic levels of rage, so I listened to some really tasty metal and growled and was generally annoyed and burnt it all off by the afternoon mostly.  I think it’s just that each time I have to build myself up to these things, and when they get canned at the last minute its just all that readyness and prep just blow out the window, with all my plans just cancelled and a whole day wasted.  Also it feels a bit unfair in that they can cancel on 3-5 hours notice (and have done a few times) and that’s fine, but if I cancel at less than 48 hours notice I’m deemed to have “not shown up” for the appointment and risk getting booted from the service, where I then have to wait through another few years waiting list to get back on another.

So yeah – watch this space, lets see if they can manage to keep this second appointment of if I’ll be poking them to seek a second refund in train fares.

Walled Gardens

Well I talked about posting this recently and its been becoming more obvious in recent weeks so I figured I’d make a short post about the technological phenomenon of a walled garden, which wiki defines as:

In the telecommunications and media industries, a “walled garden” refers to a carrier or service provider’s control over applications, content, and media on platforms (such as mobile devices) and restriction of convenient access to non-approved applications or content

Sites that lock you in and own your stuff, with some technological history about how much they suck

Lunchtime discussions on taking things too far

Well an enjoyable discussion over lunch today brought up what I feel to be my central issue with atheism, which while nebulous during the discussion I pondered more on the wander back to my office. Its not necessarily that I feel its a wrong idea, but that they don’t take their ideas far enough, or that they get fixated on religion.

If you posit that belief in something in the face of evidence of the contrary is a bad plan. And you suspect if it occurs in people of low ethical standards this may lead to them imposing their beliefs on others forceably in the face of dissent (even if mostly ineffectively, low level, day-to-day oppression is still a pain in the arse, check your priviledge) then you need to apply this idea to all beliefs of all stripes.

Religion isn’t special, the cry that I’ve heard a lot recently is true, but neither is politics, geneology, alien abduction, pride in a place or group, rights and responsibilities or art.

The reason that people rag on Communist Russia as the poster child for why Communism is bad is the same reason that people rag on the Catholic church of Rome as the poster child for why Christianity is bad, its the most well known and easy target which has done the most obvious wrong. Once you start splitting hairs about one you need to split hairs about the other, most gestalt entities are actually made up of groups and sub-groups and sub-subgroups all doing slightly different things if you look close enough.

If the idea has occured that you should challenge everything for yourself, think about it and be open to changing what you do and what you think based on evidence you recieve from your own activities then this should apply to everything.

Actually having re-read that I think its just because I used to be an agnostic that makes me want to suggest everyone else doubt stuff.

Discuss.

Time for a fishing trip

Interesting after part of the EU determined the UK DNA database is a breach of human rights another part of it is authorising warrentless hacking of private computers by the state.

Apparently all it requires is: a senior officer says he “believes” that it is “proportionate” and necessary to prevent or detect serious crime — defined as any offence attracting a jail sentence of more than three years (emphasis mine)

Which surely opens the floodgates to fishing expiditions searching for anything really, since both copyright infringement and “eXXXtreme pr0n!” will surely carry sentences this long as maximums, and it can be claimed anyone connected to the net may be participating in these activities.

Oh please could the government kindly get its filthy morals out of my face

So recently some of you may have heard that the ACMD declared that we should lower the classification on marijuana, a report that the UK government paid them to write. This was followed by Brown declaring it a moral issue instead and that he was going to raise the classification.

This was then followed by the Gower’s Report declaring (from memory) that the massive length of copyright is strangling the public domain and fucking things up, and the Government agreed. Shockingly a couple of days ago Andy Burnham said that he was pushing for a 20 year extension to copyright (and this is of a particular recording, the actual lyrics and music as I understand it last for 70 years after their dead) because it was, drumroll please, a moral issue.

Could the pair of you please fuck off to an obscure island somewhere to be moral please.

He enjoys sitting

Well recently suggested that in fact sitting was one of my hobbies, and while I realise it was in jest (and I did indeed giggle) the comment conceals one of the ways I’m currently interested in looking at the world. In that most of the time we just work out how to get something done basically and never really return to look at the area properly.

Since I’m not particularly great at anything I do (although I think I’m pretty good at many things) I’ve found solice in the materials written by those who are and am attempting to absorb their material for my benefit (i.e. learnin’). Now one of the threads that I keep coming back to is that of the fundamentals.

Now its not that I enjoy studying samey basic materials over and over again, its that a truly good treatment of a subject must start by addressing the very basic things from which that subject is built, and it takes a truly lucid and deep understanding of something before those fundamentals are truly absorbed in to the self and can be communicated clearly. Every time you read a description of something fundamental from another experienced and valid point of view you pick up at least a new way of thinking about it, which may help things click with you and help your own practice.

In my opinion truly mastering a subject or improving at it beyond a certain point requires at least cursory study of the fundamentals of what goes into building it.

For example (and I realise I’m banging a drum about this but it interests me) my iaido is especially fascinating to me because never really been physically fit, so to move through the first 11 training forms (which are the ones I can say I “know” in at least a rough way) I’ve had to start to learn all kinds of things from that groups point of view. Posture, sitting, standing, stepping, breathing, these are the basic things (you also get to do cutting, which in itself is an elegant system) but even these can be broken down. The fundamentals of shifting weight, of tensing and untensing certain muscles, of balance and body position. And this has come back to help the rest of my life. My posture has improved in other places, I’m fitter, I’d like to think my movements are a little more graceful and I’m less likely to trip over my shoes now.

The book that initially got me thinking about this is Lessons in the Fundamentals of Go, a truly excellent text by Kageyama Toshiro, in this the very basic building blocks of a truly well played game are discussed and outlined, the connections between moves, the natural way things should flow into each other, basic strategies like nets and ladders and a number of other topics. Now I knew of most of these things before I picked up the book, but I didn’t really stop to think about it, and mostly played on instinct. My game has deteriorated through lack of practice but I’ve enjoyed starting to get it back on track with books like this, thinking about the very basic things and coming back to them again and again to ponder how they influence the more complex behaviours.

At an earlier point in my life I studied the work of Constantin Stanislavski, specifically briefly going through (most of, I was lazy) his excellent work An Actor Prepares, which is essentially Stanislavski going back to the fundamental building blocks of acting, how to construct the mental and physical notions of character within yourself, how to break up and study texts, searching for motives, how to stir yourself to various emotions, how to condition yourself to be able to use your imagination to tie it all together in a moving performance.

I feel this also plays a part in a number of interesting occult systems I’ve looked at (even so briefly) over recent year, I feel in some ways the enduring attractiveness of a lot of the Hermetic or Egyptian work is that it is essentially the fundamentals of the later more baroque schools of thought. But also the later stuff in a way holds similar goals, the GD (although in many ways very complex) I always get the impression sought a return to the fundamentals, by attempting to create a massive syncratic union of everything into Kabbalah and Tarot they sought to understand the fundamental things that were the building blocks of other systems and the world. Austin Osman Spare I always get the impression was motivated by this. While he’d go away and learn in other peoples systems he was truly looking at the fundamentals and constructing his own way (not always the best route, theres a lot to be said for really trying to grok a system of anything, but its true at some point you should try to do your own thing). In many ways the current final child of the old guard of Magic is the Chaos Magicians who are again I think looking into what the real fundamentals of humans and the world are and how you can tweak them for the most benefit.

In a similar vein are the Runes in a way, since they are at heart a mystery or a secret they describe the fundamental states of the world and inside that our lives and minds. I feel the study of Runes is again the study of fundamentals, in that although they can be represented as staves, sounds, numbers, letters, concepts, names, postures… but all some attempt to represent something truly underpinning the world.

I’ve also looked at this with roleplaying (and I believe and have recently been posting on this topic). What are the fundamentals of roleplaying? How to get people involved, to help them have fun, to explore characters motivations and actions, to play types of people they never get the chance to in real-life, to make them experience (at least in some way) a number of feelings they’d rarely get the chance too otherwise. My well known long running Kult campaign is in many ways a series of experiments on this front. Do we need dice? Character sheets? How can we generate an atmosphere? Do props help or distract? What kinds of lighting and music can help build atmosphere? What kills it? How best to pace a game? Can you run combat without getting bogged down? How to make players care for their characters? Is a “party” structure really necessary or just useful? How much direction does the game need, how much free reign do the players need? What kind of game do these players want to play? What kind of story do I want to help them tell?

In my own day-to-day profession I’ve also found that this sort of study is apparent. Again and again we see this outlined in many ways, the same building blocks are reused again and again. Breaking algorithms up into subroutines or functions, breaking code out into libraries, treating communication between programs as very simple streams (TCP sockets anyone?) and holding all of this up the concept of abstraction. We abstract to make things faster to develop, easier to modify and in many ways better to use and run, we abstract to make things simpler so we can make our computers do even more complex things, we abstract away from the fact that every current computer is at its heart a limited turing machine glued to a metronome.

Programmers relentlessly train themselves into the habits of efficiency, of doing things once and once only, and only then if really pushed. Always looking for ways make things cheaper and faster but always the idea that things must be robust hanging over us, if an algorithm has too many shortcuts, too many special cases, too many dodgy machine specific hacks it becomes brittle and unportable. In Perl culture its said that the three virtues of a programmer are Laziness, Impatience and Hubris and while I’m not sure I agree totally its interesting to ponder.

Even our user interfaces are built around these concepts, sooner or later every user has to get their hands dirty actually typing commands into a computer (although this is again abstraction), and those of us who enjoy this kind of thing get hooked on it, simple commands that can be held conceptually inside the mind join simply together with pipelines, and we again return to efficiency, abstraction and simplicity.

“When the Patriarch McIlroy invented the pipe, he knew that it would transform software, but did not know that it would transform mind.”
The Rootless Root

When programmers I know write code (and indeed write anything) they really have three choices. They do it in vim, they do it in Emacs or they use some piss poor tool that makes Baby RMS cry. They use concrete implementations of the platonic ideal of these two editors (okay originally they was ed and teco) because they were created, nay accreted over time in environments where people really really wanted to edit text. Vim is in many ways I feel the more simple, the more fundamental, the cleaner of the two ideals. Whats that? You want to move forward 2 paragraphs and three sentences? 2}3) and thats it. You remember typing some section title starting with the word “Good”? /^good and then hit ‘n’ until you find it. Emacs, whilst fun, is really more an entire environment in which the fundamentals of manipulating text are laid bare before your eyes, and hence you can do your own crazy thing should you wish.

Our Internet is also based on these principles, abstraction, efficiency and simplicity. It also looks towards that of independence, as given away by the name. Its an Inter-Network, a joining together of various independent autonomous systems to create a greater whole and pass information about, but at its heart its clearly very independent.

Just look at how email works for example (although those with a nervous disposition may wish to look away and pretend email isn’t foul) its a giant system for passing basically unformatted text files around, these days the text files are optionally formatted, but the actual mail transports don’t care. And look at the protocol, its simple (well it got more complex, the original is like 12 pages), so simple it can be typed by hand. Sure it would be more efficient to have it all squashed down and compressed into binary code but frankly its nice to be able to simply write or debug something with just telnet. Sure it would probably be more efficient in some ways to have some kind of big post-office like system and punt things around like that, but Email is built upon the idea that “When mails going between systems on the net we do SMTP, what you do to deliver it, read it or write it on your system is none of my business, just don’t expect me to do things your way.”

This is best summed up I feel by a wonderful checklist I’ve seen in a few places on Usenet and also sometimes on Slashdot about antispam ideas, essentially it includes things like “Your idea requires spammers to play nice”, “Why should I trust your system?” and other simple problems.

Efficiency, abstraction, simplicity, robustness, independence. These are just some of the fundamentals of computing, I’m sure in my rant I’ve missed a lot out.

Anyway the point of all of this was to attempt to discuss why I think the fundamental parts of activities require pondering and in some cases deep study before a subject will start to make real sense, so ask yourself:

How am I sitting, is it comfortable, is it good for my body?

How am I reading this text? Am I staring too long, will that be good for my eyes? How am I taking this information in? Can I recall it all? Should I take notes? How to take the notes? How to arrange them, format them, link them to the original text or other thoughts in my mind?

When I’m writing what are the fundamentals of that craft? The paragraph? The sentence? The word? How do I get my point across? How do I tell the story? What kind of structure should I use for my work? How to break things up? If its typed hows my typing? Should I take a course in touch typing? Is the light and desk the right height? How will it appear to the end reader? What control do I have on that formatting, should I use it? If its hand-written hows it organised? Can I correct mistakes? Is the actual motion of my pen making just text or is it writing as an art? Is that needed here? Is this a scribble or am I writing something important?

What about food, what are the fundamentals behind preparing food? Selecting ingredients, blending flavours, physically slicing or chopping items (and what about that? The best way to handle a knife, the best kind of blade for the kind of object), and what about eating food? Best place to be? (do you want a view? Do you want to sit? Stand? Sprawl?), methods of cutting food? Blending tastes from the meal on your palate? Drinks to go with it?

I recall a story of a zen master who looked particularly smug after eating something, and when asked about it said that this was because he was full. When it was pointed out everyone else had eaten as much as him he declared this to be false, his reasoning was that when he was eating that was all he was doing. Just eating, and savouring that. Everyone else was thinking about things, shifting themselves about in their seats, looking about and chatting.

What are the fundamentals of communication and polite conversation? When I was younger I watched a few small children interacting. One of them about 5 years old taught me the fundamentals of polite conversation (which I often forget to follow). In that: (a) You are not the centre of the world, (b) Conversation flows and forks naturally, don’t drag it too hard or it’ll jump the rails and crash and (c) Wait your turn to say something if you feel you have a valid point, if the conversation drifts away before you do then let it go, at some point in the future you may get a chance to say your bit, but does it really matter?

Now note that this is just about polite chatter and enjoyable social conversation, these rules don’t hold for meetings or any situation where it might be important that people know the information.

“If you have an important point to make, don’t try to be subtle or clever. Use
a pile driver.”
— Anonymous.

Next time your climbing a tree think of this, what are the fundamentals of climbing? How does one lift ones self with the arms, or even with the legs? How many limbs should be on the tree at once, what kind of grips are needed? How do you judge the weight a branch will take? Where should your weight be positioned, resting on which limbs? If you fall how should you try and land? How best to try and catch yourself and stop the motion?

Everything from filing to swimming to walking and breathing have fundamentals, a lot of them overlap and most are useful to know, improving many parts of your life, just a matter of working out which to study then thinking and testing, fascinating work :)