Archive for February, 2007

Mustard watches: an integrated approach to time and food

February 28, 2007

“Classical watches display time, but can hardly do anything else.  This limitation is artificial: for instance several people confessed to be often in need of mustard… and what is the point of knowing time if you cannot get mustard?”

Includes useful theorems such as that:

1. It is possible to get as much mustard as wanted from a mustard watch.
2. A mustard watch which is its own metawatch is degenerated (using a Gödelian construction and a temporal logic).

By Y.-J. Ringard (Jean-Yves Girard).  Over here.

Smiling

February 24, 2007

Today as I was waiting for a bus near the Mound I noticed a pretty girl sitting upstairs on a bus which had just stopped on the other side of the road. I looked at her until she noticed me, I smiled, and then, a bit embarrassed at my mad-person behaviour, looked away. When I looked back again she was still looking at me and now smiling too :-) . As the bus moved on we waved at each other and I thought, life’s not so bad after all.

Sexualization of Girls

February 21, 2007

The Report of the APA Task Force on the sexualization of girls is over here.

“There are several components to sexualization, and these set it apart from healthy sexuality. Sexualization occurs when

  • a person’s value comes only from his or her sexual appeal or behavior, to the exclusion of other characteristics;
  • a person is held to a standard that equates physical attractiveness (narrowly defined) with being sexy;
  • a person is sexually objectified—that is, made into a thing for others’ sexual use, rather than seen as a person with the capacity for independent action and decision making; and/or
  • sexuality is inappropriately imposed upon a person.

“All four conditions need not be present; any one is an indication of sexualization.The fourth condition (the inappropriate imposition of sexuality) is especially relevant to children.

“Anyone (girls, boys, men, women) can be sexualized. But when children are imbued with adult sexuality, it is often imposed upon them rather than chosen by them. Self-motivated sexual exploration, on the other hand, is not sexualization by our definition, nor is age-appropriate exposure to information about sexuality. “

The utility of petitions

February 19, 2007

 

E-petition: Response from the Prime Minister

The e-petition to “scrap the proposed introduction of ID cards” has now closed. The petition stated that “The introduction of ID cards will not prevent terrorism or crime, as is claimed. It will be yet another indirect tax on all law-abiding citizens of the UK”. This is a response from the Prime Minister, Tony Blair.

The petition calling for the Government to abandon plans for a National ID Scheme attracted almost 28,000 signatures – one of the largest responses since this e-petition service was set up. So I thought I would reply personally to those who signed up, to explain why the Government believes National ID cards, and the National Identity Register needed to make them effective, will help make Britain a safer place.

The petition disputes the idea that ID cards will help reduce crime or terrorism. While I certainly accept that ID cards will not prevent all terrorist outrages or crime, I believe they will make an important contribution to making our borders more secure, countering fraud, and tackling international crime and terrorism. More importantly, this is also what our security services – who have the task of protecting this country – believe.

So I would like to explain why I think it would be foolish to ignore the opportunity to use biometrics such as fingerprints to secure our identities. I would also like to discuss some of the claims about costs – particularly the way the cost of an ID card is often inflated by including in estimates the cost of a biometric passport which, it seems certain, all those who want to travel abroad will soon need.

In contrast to these exaggerated figures, the real benefits for our country and its citizens from ID cards and the National Identity Register, which will contain less information on individuals than the data collected by the average store card, should be delivered for a cost of around £3 a year over its ten-year life.

But first, it’s important to set out why we need to do more to secure our identities and how I believe ID cards will help. We live in a world in which people, money and information are more mobile than ever before. Terrorists and international criminal gangs increasingly exploit this to move undetected across borders and to disappear within countries. Terrorists routinely use multiple identities – up to 50 at a time. Indeed this is an essential part of the way they operate and is specifically taught at Al-Qaeda training camps. One in four criminals also uses a false identity. ID cards which contain biometric recognition details and which are linked to a National Identity Register will make this much more difficult.

Secure identities will also help us counter the fast-growing problem of identity fraud. This already costs £1.7 billion annually. There is no doubt that building yourself a new and false identity is all too easy at the moment. Forging an ID card and matching biometric record will be much harder.

I also believe that the National Identity Register will help police bring those guilty of serious crimes to justice. They will be able, for example, to compare the fingerprints found at the scene of some 900,000 unsolved crimes against the information held on the register. Another benefit from biometric technology will be to improve the flow of information between countries on the identity of offenders.

The National Identity Register will also help improve protection for the vulnerable, enabling more effective and quicker checks on those seeking to work, for example, with children. It should make it much more difficult, as has happened tragically in the past, for people to slip through the net.

Proper identity management and ID cards also have an important role to play in preventing illegal immigration and illegal working. The effectiveness on the new biometric technology is, in fact, already being seen. In trials using this technology on visa applications at just nine overseas posts, our officials have already uncovered 1,400 people trying illegally to get back into the UK.

Nor is Britain alone in believing that biometrics offer a massive opportunity to secure our identities. Firms across the world are already using fingerprint or iris recognition for their staff. France, Italy and Spain are among other European countries already planning to add biometrics to their ID cards. Over 50 countries across the world are developing biometric passports, and all EU countries are proposing to include fingerprint biometrics on their passports. The introduction in 2006 of British e-passports incorporating facial image biometrics has meant that British passport holders can continue to visit the United States without a visa. What the National Identity Scheme does is take this opportunity to ensure we maximise the benefits to the UK.

These then are the ways I believe ID cards can help cut crime and terrorism. I recognise that these arguments will not convince those who oppose a National Identity Scheme on civil liberty grounds. They will, I hope, be reassured by the strict safeguards now in place on the data held on the register and the right for each individual to check it. But I hope it might make those who believe ID cards will be ineffective reconsider their opposition.

If national ID cards do help us counter crime and terrorism, it is, of course, the law-abiding majority who will benefit and whose own liberties will be protected. This helps explain why, according to the recent authoritative Social Attitudes survey, the majority of people favour compulsory ID cards.

I am also convinced that there will also be other positive benefits. A national ID card system, for example, will prevent the need, as now, to take a whole range of documents to establish our identity. Over time, they will also help improve access to services.

The petition also talks about cost. It is true that individuals will have to pay a fee to meet the cost of their ID card in the same way, for example, as they now do for their passports. But I simply don’t recognise most claims of the cost of ID cards. In many cases, these estimates deliberately exaggerate the cost of ID cards by adding in the cost of biometric passports. This is both unfair and inaccurate.

As I have said, it is clear that if we want to travel abroad, we will soon have no choice but to have a biometric passport. We estimate that the cost of biometric passports will account for 70% of the cost of the combined passports/id cards. The additional cost of the ID cards is expected to be less than £30 or £3 a year for their 10-year lifespan. Our aim is to ensure we also make the most of the benefits these biometric advances bring within our borders and in our everyday lives.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Blair

The Purple Cow’s Projected Feast: Reflections on a Mythic Beast, Who’s Quite Remarkable, at Least

February 19, 2007

I never saw a purple cow,
I never hope to see one;
But I can tell you, anyhow,
I’d rather see than be one.

—Gelett Burgess

EU extraordinary rendition report

February 15, 2007

Written in a very painful to read style, but the pdf is over here.

A couple of quotes:

“the so-called ‘war on terror’—in its excesses—has produced a serious and dangerous erosion of human rights and fundamental freedoms, as noted by the outgoing UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan.”

“[The European parliament] Confirms, in view of the additional information received during the second part of the proceedings of the Temporary Committee, that it is unlikely that certain European governments were unaware of the extraordinary rendition activities taking place in their territory.”

The following people refused to speak to the investigators:

  • Margaret BECKETT, Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. She “claimed busy agenda and singled out Minister Hoon to deputise her.”
  • Des BROWNE, Secretary of State for Defence: No reasons given.
  • John REID, Secretary of State for the Home Office: No reasons given.
  • Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Scotland: No reasons given.
  • Elisa MANNINGHAM-BULLER, Director General of Security Service (MI5): No authorisation for a meeting from Government.
  • John SCARLET, Chief of the Secret Intelligence Service (MI6): No authorisation for a meeting from Government.
  • Irfan SIDDIQ, member of the Diplomatic Service: No authorisation for a meeting from Government.
  • Richard DEARLOVE, former Head of MI6: No reasons given.
  • Michael WOOD, former Legal Adviser of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office: No reasons given.

Charlotte Gainsbourg—Operation

February 14, 2007

Very nice tune.  My iPod first delivered this to me after a very long day…  Lyrics:

I want to explore you
I’m gonna get under your skin
So you can feel me running through your veins

I want to examine
Every inch of your frame
The pressure points that cause your joy and pain

Our love goes under the knife
There is no room for doubt

Now i’m inside you
My hands can feel their way
Further inside than I have ever been

Now i can really
Mess around with your heart
And fill it to the brim with broken dreams

Our love goes under the knife
Two lives may be saved

And if I pull this off
I’ll refuse the Nobel prize
Instead I will look into your eyes

If I pull this off your whole body will be mine
And I’m prepared to work throughout the night

Our love goes under the knife
Nothing is taboo
…Here on the cutting edge of science

Too much information
I feel i’m getting lost
Absorbed into the fibre of your soul

Deep within the abbatoir
Of your entrails your insides
Lost in you forever far from home

Our love goes under the knife
Someone got too close

Our love goes under the knife
The heart was rejected by the host

Happy V-Day (from xkcd.com)

February 14, 2007

Monbiot on BAe shenanigans

February 14, 2007

Interesting article which was published in the Guardian yesterday.  (See over here.)  It begins:

There is a state within a state in the United Kingdom, a small but untouchable domain that appears to be subject to a different set of laws. We have heard quite a bit about it over the past two months, but hardly anyone knows just how far its writ runs. The state is BAE, Britain’s biggest arms company. It seems, among other advantages, to be able to run its own secret service. [...]

Nice interview with Michel Foucault

February 11, 2007

(Over here.)  Extracts:

“I am not a writer, a philosopher, a great figure of intellectual life: I am a teacher. There is a social phenomenon that troubles me a great deal: Since the 1960s, some teachers are becoming public men with the same obligations. I don’t want to become a prophet and say, “Please sit down, what I have to say is very important.” I have come to discuss our common work.”

“I don’t feel that it is necessary to know exactly what I am. The main interest in life and work is to become someone else that you were not in the beginning. If you knew when you began a book what you would say at the end, do you think that you would have the courage to write it? What is true for writing and for a love relationship is true also for life. The game is worthwhile insofar as we don’t know what will be the end.”

“Each of my works is a part of my own biography. For one or another reason I had the occasion to feel and live those things. To take a simple example, I used to work in a psychiatric hospital in the 1950s. After having studied philosophy, I wanted to see what madness was: I had been mad enough to study reason; I was reasonable enough to study madness. I was free to move from the patients to the attendants, for I had no precise role. It was the time of the blooming of neurosurgery, the beginning of psychopharmology, the reign of the traditional institution. At first I accepted things as necessary, but then after three months (I am slow-minded!), I asked, “What is the necessity of these things?” After three years I left the job and went to Sweden in great personal discomfort and started to write a history of these practices [Madness and Civilization] … It was perceived as a psychiatricide, but it was a description from history. You know the difference between a real science and a pseudoscience? A real science recognizes and accepts its own history without feeling attacked. When you tell a psychiatrist his mental institution came from the lazar house, he becomes infuriated.”