Dear Martin,

I had hoped our first communication would be more interesting than this. The fact is, I had been waiting until I'd absorbed more of your brilliant site before I got in touch. However, this has been pre-empted by your new page called "So What?". I love the idea, but you really should proof-read it again!

Things I spotted that you might want to know about:

1. "Organisms do* need a reason to exist, or a purpose, only an opportunity." *insert 'not'!

2. Syntax does not make good sense..."what are we alive for" This whole section (3 or 4 paragraphs) appears to be repeated!

3. "Replication within a finite and imperfect universe leads to evolution as surely as four equal length sides on a flat polygon lead to 90 degree angles." I suggest you think again about your geometric assumptions :-)

Hope this helps. Rest assured, I'll be in touch a little later, once I've read some more. It shouldn't take too long, because I'm reading your stuff at lunch time at work, and the word "unputdownable" doesn't even cover it. I hope my boss doesn't monitor my Internet time, or I'll be sacked for sure. Well Done!

More later - in the mean time, all I'll say is: thanks for re-awakening all kinds of dormant stuff in me.

Mike

Thanks a lot for the message. I really appreciate an honest and fair critic to tell me where I have gone wrong as well as where I have gone right. This kind of feedback is really helpful. I would have noticed eventually, but probably after a dozen or more people had noticed and marked me down in their estimation.

I write when my creativity peaks coincide with my available time. I proof-read and do minor tweaks when my spare time does not coincide with my creativity. Over time the pages get better. Some are in their twentieth draft now, most modifications are minor, spotting errors I should have spotted earlier.

If you see any more I will be grateful if you could point them out.

Martin

Yes, I've been meaning to write for a while now! I found your site about 2 or 3 weeks ago. I receive a weekly tongue-in-cheek newsletter for nerds called "Need To Know", and they have a section every week entitled "MEMEPOOL". I was curious about the meaning, so I did a Google search on MEME, and your site was near the top of the list.

Thank you for educating me about memes, I'd never heard of them before but I find the idea very persuasive. My father has a copy of "The Selfish Gene", I think, but I haven't read it yet. I'll make that a priority now! Am I right in saying that Richard Dawkins gave a series of Royal Institution Christmas Lectures? I seem to remember him doing so, and of course it had an evolutionary theme.

I agree with most of your ideas, even though I had not come across some of them before - this puzzled me, as I am used to treating new ideas with scepticism. The logical conclusion is that you think much like me :-) Even where I disagreed with you, I have to say that I admired your consistency and integrity. You have produced one of the most worthwhile sites I have ever stumbled across. I found many things of value while browsing your pages, and your stated goal of inspiring other minds has been at least partially achieved in my case. I feel that I had begun to stray back into spirituality, and you have pulled me back from the brink and re-awakened my rationalist character. It also made me realise that I had been infected by quite a few irrational memes of which I was unaware - for example, I was old-fashioned enough to be resistant to metric measures. I have now stood up to that idea in my head and told it where to get off. Phew! Fancy working as my psychotherapist? :-)

A bit of background: I'm 36 (37 on Sunday), about to be married (September), no kids yet, Maths graduate working as a contractor in I.T. Dad is atheist (in reaction to his Methodist Dad), Mum had a Baptist upbringing. I sang in a church choir at the age of 12, was confirmed a Christian, believed it all, but partly under Dad's influence (he read the works of Ayn Rand, whose ideas I no longer support entirely, but who gave me a lot of useful guidance in terms of logical thought), gave it all up a few years later. Over the years I've wavered between agnosticism and what I would describe as a personalised spiritualism (i.e. "There's something out there, but I don't know what, and I certainly don't want to worship it in an organised way with a hundred other people"), but have usually described myself as agnostic. You've woken me up and made me realise that I actually don't believe any of it and I am therefore an atheist. I like your term "rationalist", I hope you won't consider it plagiarism if I use it now. I also like the original Hitchhikers Guide radio series enough to play it in my car on a regular basis. I mourn the loss of the "Marvin humming Pink Floyd" clip in Fit 3rd. It was broadcast in the original series but removed after copyright problems.

Well I've probably rambled on a bit too much, so I'll leave it there. At home tonight maybe I'll have time to say a few more controversial and structured things, it's a bit difficult to do this at work, but I just had to write back. All the best,

Mike

P.S. Thanks for acting so quickly on my little "problem report" about your "So What?" page - but did you read my third point at all? You still incorrectly state that a polygon with four equal sides has to have 90 degree angles. What about a rhombus? I'm trying to help, not criticise, of course. I'd hate it if some fundy Christian started poking fun at you because you thought you were so clever but got your geometry wrong.

BOLLOCKS!!!! Of course! I'll make it a triangle, you can't go wrong with triangles, or can you? Anyway, I'll have a go at getting it right!

I like your computer ideas, although I think they are probably outdated before they have even begun. The next generation of mass storage is going to be breathtakingly cheap, small, and with no moving parts. 10 terabytes in the palm of your hand, from what I hear. PCs *will* eventually stop their insane race for complexity and get sensible again, partly because the next generation of kids won't see the novelty value, having grown up with the things. I see a bright future, have no fear! Oh and by the way - Opera. I approve! The best browser in existence.

CD Roms: what to do with them! I made a teetering pile of 'em by sticking them together with blobs of BluTak. It makes a great coffee mug coaster, until the numbers grow beyond about 25, then it's too wobbly! Fun though, looks a bit like a hard disk. If I had a digital camera I could send you a pic, but I don't. I'm waiting for the prices to drop before wasting money on that kind of thing..

Have you read "The Origins Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind" by Julian Jaynes? He has some interesting ideas about the origins of religion. If you haven't read it, his theory is based on studies of the mind, particularly those carried out on schizophrenics and also epilepsy sufferers who've had corrective surgery: he makes quite a good case for his explanation - which is basically that our consciousness was radically different until only a few thousand years ago. Significantly, he claims that it began to change at around the time of the Old Testament, and he postulates that the origins of religion may lie in the old style consciousness that we used to possess - one under which we hallucinated higher authorities telling us what to do. There's more to it than this, and I'm summarising from memory, but if you are interested in alternative explanations for the emergence of religion in human society, you should give it a look.

Thanks for making me mellow out about spam and junk email :-) I used to get so mad about it. Now I just reach for the delete button.

Oh and while I'm on the minor stuff, let's get these two out of the way.. A skinhead haircut is not inherently aggressive (and you do claim this somewhere on your site), neither on me (hair down to my shoulders for 10 years, grade 1 since last August) nor on a Buddhist monk! It also has great practical value - particularly in a convertible car (or indeed on a bicycle!). Just think, you can wash your hair with a flannel, and it's dry after about a minute.. FREEDOM!! Of course if I wore the white shirt and Dr Martens I might have to concede the point - but I DON'T!

Body piercings may be chosen for reasons other than peer conformity. I actually had my left nipple pierced a year ago, and find that it makes a positive contribution to my sex life, as it increases stimulation. I wouldn't overdo it like some people, and I certainly wouldn't pierce my tongue, genitals or eyebrows. Eyebrow piercings can be extremely dangerous if not done right, as crucial nerves run through that area and people have ended up with facial paralysis. Basically what I'm saying is that piercing, like drugs, is OK in moderation. One thing I've considered, but decided NOT to do is a tattoo, for all the very good reasons you gave on your pages, i.e. I can't reverse the decision and it will look stupid when I'm 80. Apparently you can now get 5-year tattoos, but what's the point? While I can see other reasons for piercing yourself, I can't see any reason for a tattoo other than conformity. I don't want one.

I have more to say, particularly about my forthcoming wedding in a Catholic church (!!!), but I'll have to leave it there or I'll fall asleep at the keyboard. Unlike you sensible cyclists, I'm stupid enough (or is it greedy enough? The money's pretty good) to commute to a job 43 miles away, thus polluting the environment and knocking ten hours off every week of my life. Mind you, I do all my best thinking in the car, so there's an upside too.. I bid you good night.

Oh by the way, if you ever publish any of my stuff, that's fine, but could you leave my surname off please?

Cheers.

Mike

Cyclist? I have a bike, but then I have a Bible... I walk to the train and walk to work. Tesco deliver. The train is due to leave soon I need to be on it (well, can't afford not to be on it) but I just want to make a brief point about short hair. Many people find it offensive and aggressive, many of the people who choose this style are happy about that, they intend it, many do not. Think about the following "I don't mean nuthin bad by calling black folks niggras, I don't understan' why they gets so het up about it, it's not like I wants to lynch them or nuthin..." See the parallel? (Is parallel right? I'm geometrically paranoid now!)

Good point about Buddhist monks, I can scarcely imagine them chanting "Yer gonna get yer F**kin' heads kicked in", in the lotus position or otherwise.

Oops, sorry! I must have had a crossed wire about that, thought you were a cyclist..

Yes I think I'm with you there (short hair and aggression). So my choice is my own, but I have to live with certain unfortunate consequences because of the actions of other people in the past. Does this mean that the P.C. crowd will one day require me to grow it back in case I offend persecuted minorities who might mistake me for a skinhead? I hope society never goes that mad. I suppose it's all a question of degree. If I lived in Germany the effect might be greater. If I lived in Alabama and happened to have a penchant for white robes and pointy hats, it would be even greater, etc.

Of course, my short hair is not accompanied by a hundred tattoos, a neck as thick as a tree trunk and a permanent scowl, so I don't think I look the slightest bit intimidating - especially as my ears stick out and I'm a computer nerd! I could be wrong though - one interesting side-effect of having it cut was that people became more attentive when serving me in shops, hotels etc. Did they think I would kick their heads in if they didn't? I hardly think so! I think it more likely that I'm now just receiving a normal level of politeness and service, and it just seems better in comparison with how I was treated when I appeared to be a long-haired hippy. I must say that I don't remember making any distinctions like that when I used to work in a shop. (it was an electronics shop in Southampton, so maybe the customers were mainly Anoraks anyway :-)

Actually my girlfriend also likes it because people in general actually are more polite to her too - interesting, eh? Must be the male animal instinct or something going on there, to do with aggressive appearance and mating rituals. More your area of expertise, I don't think I'm qualified to comment on it.

Oops! Just mentioned Southampton, giving away the fact that I'm a Southern shandy-drinking poofter :-O (actually real ale and/or Guinness, but not in enormous quantities..) I've been to the Lake District and I love York, so perhaps you can forgive me...

I did an experiment last year during the fuel crisis. To save petrol, I started doing 60mph all the way to work (well, when the motorway wasn't jammed up, naturally!). I enjoyed it so much that I do it most days now. What a different experience! I only have to overtake about half a dozen lorries the whole way there. I can put radio 4 on, or H2G2, or whatever, or just switch it all off and think about stuff, and not have to worry about whether the Volvo driver on the inside is gonna invade my territory, (the bastard! What, indicate, would you?? That's a bit provocative innit? Well, you're not getting out now Sonny Jim, Ooooh no! You can sit there until I'm good and ready, until I've done *my* bit of driving, I was here first... Grrrrr!... CRUNCH. Oh Shit.) No I've never been that bad, but I've had my "wound-up" days, it happens to most drivers. Not since I started pootling along on the left though. It's absolute BLISS I tell you. I get out of the car at work, whistling a merry tune, grab my stuff, lock the car, walk briskly across to the office with a spring in my step, wish a cheery "Good Morning" to the receptionist and I'm set up for the day. And all for the sake of FIVE minutes that I would have saved by attempting to do 90mph all the way in. That saved five minutes would probably have taken 5 HOURS off my life-span due to stress.

Then again, maybe I'm just getting on a bit now and I like driving slower..

Did you hear about the kids in America that actually have three biological parents? They did DNA tests and the offspring genuinely have genes from three separate people, two mothers and a father. Scary, eh? I wonder if this has any implications whatsoever for evolution?

Bollocks, I've rambled on about trivial stuff again. I really hope I'm not boring you Martin, I keep meaning to talk about more serious stuff, but I think I'm just too knackered at the moment. Maybe I should give it a rest and come back to you when I'm more alert; I wouldn't want to exceed your inanity tolerance threshold.

Mike

I started writing this piece yesterday after Outlook Express failed to send my mail yesterday morning, but I forgot that I didn't delete that message, so it got sent despite me doing a better version later.

The History of Short Hair

The Roundheads wore their hair aggressively short. Skinheads wear it short. The Victorian workhouses and prisons made excessively short hair compulsory so that escapees would stand out in the crowds.

When Malcolm Maclaren was designing punk he knew it had to have a short hair style, short is aggressive, in your face and associated with the revolting lower orders. But simple crew cuts could be confused with racist skinheads (why alienate part of your market?) or with US military culture, so he went for short but with spikes and colours. Cutting your hair is an act of rebellion. Many people cut their hair off at the end of an affair. There is symbolism in hair cuts.

I agree that a short hair cut on a Buddhist monk is not particularly aggressive. It is difficult to imagine a bloke in a saffron robe throwing a petrol bomb or starting a bit of bovver after downing fifteen cans of Special Brew. But you can take that plea of innocent naivety too far. When a significant number of people are likely to see something one way you do have some responsibility.

"Why officer, what have you got agin this robe of mine? The Georgia sun beats down as hot as it does in Arabia, them A-rabs dress in robes like this too. And I didn't mean to cause no O-fence to that African-American lady back there, I think niggra is a fine word, and ma hound dog done never complained when I calls her a bitch. I never meant to cause no o-fence to nobody, will you let me git on with my ride, this piece of firewood I intend do-natin' to the poor new neighbour of mine has nearly gone and burned up."

OK, some exaggeration to help my argument. We do have some responsibility for the way other people interpret our actions, you cannot claim that having no intention to cause offence or alarm is the same as not causing offence and alarm. Just as "I didn't mean to kill him" is not the same contention as I didn't kill him. I think if you do choose to wear your hair cut very short you should do all you can to soften some other aspect of your image and to avoid any suggestion of being a thug.

Personally I have my hair cut as short as I can consistent with not looking at all short. I have experimented with a short style but I hated the look of it while appreciating the practical advantages. My hair is about 50 mm long but looks more Oasis than Offspring, if you know what I mean, fortunately my hairdresser does. Nobody sees me as a skinhead or a hippy.

Computers

Storage, if it comes off then things will be different, you could have a hard drive replacement that never fills up. I am a little sceptical. I have reading about such breakthroughs for years in the magazines that come free with the disks I buy. It seems that a technology a thousand times better than the current one is always on the horizon, but still somehow what you can buy in the shops is only a few hundred percent better than what you could buy two and a half years ago. 20 MB hard drives were around ten years ago, a thousand fold increase takes quite a long time, but always the promise is thousand fold improvements in time for next Christmas. I won't complain if it happens, but I am cautious. I still remember hearing the word gigabyte for the first time and thinking it was an enormous amount of data, that was back in the heady days of Windows 3.1 when men were real men, women were real women and everybody on the 'net was a real geek.

Pootling

I discovered the bliss of pootling early. With a 2CV there were two alternatives, cruising speed of 55 and take it easy or drive on the limit, the top speed was 72MPH, keeping up with the motorway traffic required every sinew to be tweaked to the full. I could do it, I learned how to throw that car around about and drive on the limit of the machine, it was invigorating but hardly practical for long periods. It did teach me how to accelerate properly, using the maximum potential in each gear, but most of the time you want to get where you are going and not feel like you have just been competing at Le Man. Pootling is essential. The in car entertainment facilities were limited to singing.

I have since re-discovered the joys of pootling. When I was trying to make a living designing kitchens I did very big distances, going to appointments I was often pressed for time but on the return journey time rarely mattered, what did matter was trying to use less petrol than I claimed in allowances, so I learned how to enjoy driving at lorry speeds, but the Sierra was not as good at slipstreaming lorries as the 2CV. You have to remember that a F1 car makes a very small hole in the air but drag increases with the square of speed, so slipstreaming really pays off. A lorry makes a very big hole in the air but to take full advantage of it you have to drive suicidally close, but if your car has the aerodynamic properties of garden shed you can get quite an effect from just tucking in behind something to block the wind, like racing cyclists do.

My Boyfriend is a Murderer

I remember a playground skipping rhyme or something similar that had the line "my boyfriend is a murderer", is there a survival advantage for a woman in seeming to have a psychotic partner? I can't see how it could do any harm. I can imagine that Mrs Kray always had polite service from shops. "Out of guarantee you say? You've not met my boys have you..?" Or the name's Mrs Fraser, Mrs Mad Frankie Fraser, are you quite sure you can't fit me in this afternoon for a cut and blow?"

I don't have a problem with southerners. It is just the game we English like to play, most of us know it is just a game, like calling the Welsh sheep shaggers, nothing serious, just harmless banter. Well, mostly harmless.

I have not heard the story about the child with two mothers, I don't understand what has supposed to have happened. I am not alarmed by it, although I will reserve judgement, obviously, until I have more information.

Hi Martin,

I've been rather busy, so please excuse the silence. Sometimes I do that for weeks, be warned - it doesn't mean I'm not interested, it's just that I have a habit of spreading myself too thin.

Short Hair

You make a good case, and I'm beginning to see what you mean. As it happens, I got my latest grade 1 yesterday, from a hairdresser. I don't normally pay to have something so straightforward done to my head, but I needed to look tidy for a visit with some friends of ours that night, and I also find that getting a pro to trim my beard occasionally keeps it under control(!) I got chatting to the hairdresser, and mentioned that I'd been debating with you whether I looked aggressive with a grade 1. Interestingly enough, she didn't go for the obvious bit of customer diplomacy, i.e. "Of course you don't". She considered the question carefully, then replied that it would (a) depend on the context (I presume she meant whether I was angry or not!) and (b) be more of a problem from a distance than up close. This intrigued me, as it lends credence to your argument that you can't change people's perceptions, good or bad. I was also glad to have input from someone who works with hair and people's images, and is also female. In support of my position, she did say that it's less of a problem nowadays because so many blokes are having it done. This, I think, is my trump card on this issue. Popularity negates distinctiveness. I believe that a very short haircut is probably no more offensive or controversial in a modern context than, say, a brown shirt. Most people in British society have forgotten what it used to mean; were we in East Germany, I may think differently, of course. Perhaps if I ever go back there (I was there for a day when playing in a blues band) I'll have to wear a wig.. :-)

Computers

I too remember the voluptuous timbre of the new word 'Gigabyte'! It still amazes me that I am now carrying around a Palm IIIx with EIGHTY- FIVE times as much memory as my first home computer (ZX Spectrum) - and as for Moore's law - well, I think it will only apply as long as the industry is focussed on doing things the way they have always been done. Personally, I don't rule out the possibility of a sudden leap forward. But I know what you mean about being disappointed - I guess it's quite similar to what's happening with electric cars; years of promises but nothing that's taken off commercially. The people involved are just in too much of a comfortable rut to want to drive the process of change.

Pootling

Wasn't going to say any more on this, but I've just remembered when I first learned to do it. A few years back, I owned a long-wheelbase Transit Minibus. At the time, I was in my first computing job, wore a suit and tie, and had to commute about 30 miles. I used to take great pleasure in cruising at a relaxed 55mph (just like your 2CV!), and also in pulling in to the car park in a vehicle that was about ten times the age of everyone else's company cars, and took up twice the parking space, jumping down from the driver's seat with my shirt, tie and briefcase. I think I've got a bit of the exhibitionist in me; I like to challenge people with apparent contradictions in my appearance, behaviour and beliefs. I used to go to Student Union meetings at University wearing a sweatshirt emblazoned with the word "capitalism", for shock value. Come to think of it, this probably partly explains the short hair thing; I obviously haven't outgrown that philosophy quite as much as I thought!

Another University memory: I had a badge that said "Actions speak louder than badges". Hee hee!

Are Atheists Naturally Defiant?

This occurred to me today. I had just remembered seeing an old comedy show ('The Secret Policeman's Ball', a charity gig for Amnesty International), in which there was a monologue performed by Rowan Atkinson. It began "Welcome to Hell, I am the devil", and was pretty funny. Things like "Christians, please stand over there - yes I'm sorry, the Jews were right!" I believe that one of his sarcastic comments was directed at the atheists, something along the lines of "How stupid are *you* lot feeling now?" This got me thinking; I recall a famous "utilitarian" argument for believing in God (sorry, my history's not strong, feel free to remind me of the author), which goes something like "If there is no God, my belief or lack of it is irrelevant to me once I die. If there is a God, my belief would earn me a place in heaven, but my lack of belief may send me to hell. Therefore, I can optimize the benefit to myself by believing, regardless of whether it makes sense to me." My answer to this argument, and I suspect yours also, would be that if God exists, then why did he give me a mind that worked in a rational way and deduced that he did not exist - and why would he then punish me simply for following my true nature? However, this standpoint necessitates a defiant position. It implies that, were you and I to die and discover that God existed, we would have to be prepared to lodge a formal complaint. Many people can't even pluck up the courage to do that in a shop, so what makes us think that when confronted by the omniscient master of all the universe, we wouldn't pee our pants? In conclusion, I am saying that in order to hold a consistent attitude towards the possibility of an afterlife, atheists have to be fairly defiant people. Maybe that's why I cut my hair so short (oops, we're back to that again!)

Deep Thought

Just a quick light-hearted closing comment: I know you like DNA. Remember the "Deep Thought" scene with the philosophers? I was listening to it yesterday; it is so satirical, way ahead of its time:

"Who are you?"

"We are philosophers"

"Though we may not be!"

"Yes we ARE! We are quite definitely here as representatives of the Amalgamated Union Of Philosophers, Sages, Luminaries And Other Professional Thinking Persons, and we want this machine off, and we want it off now!"..

.."We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!"

I just think it's a brilliant bit of observational comedy, that these guys are so good at pretending to be academic and claiming that nothing is certain, but as soon as their livelihood is at stake, Hey Presto! Reality is suddenly absolute again. I have always thought it obvious that even if we can't prove what we think we "know", we should just assume it's true anyway and bloody well get on with it - and whenever I heard someone at University claiming that nothing was real, I used to have an overwhelming urge to punch them, and ask them whether my fist was real. Never did it though!

As Slartibartfast says,

"I sometimes think that the chances of finding out what really is going on are so absurdly remote that the only thing to do is to say hang the sense of it and just keep yourself occupied."

Amen! Whoa, Zebedee's just sprung in, time for bed - see you again soon.

Mike

We should have met a long time ago.

If I can remember rightly these are the badges I wore at university:-

SDP Liberal Alliance (Didn't Rick of the Young Ones have one too?)

Socialism Sucks (The Trots were a bigger enemy than the Tories, more of 'em)

NUS (to annoy the Tories too)

Born Again Atheist

Keep in Upright Position When Full of Liquid

(Cannabis leaf image)

(anti apartheid logo)

Student Campaign for Electoral Reform

Sexual Deviation is the Mainspring of Evolution

Yes, it is a lot of badges. Oh to be young, ignorant and unaware of it!

Should you really be basing your personal philosophy on a character whose name is made up of a mixture of some of the most offensive words in the language? I had always been rather fond of Marvin as a philosopher. Did you know that most psychologists think that "normality" is a form of positive thinking delusion? Most people are far more optimistic than they have any rational reason to be. In reality the glass is half empty, and a bit grubby.

Oh yes. I have missed the obvious question. Short hair, beard. Are we perhaps in denial about our follicle regression?

Pascal's Wager. Believe in this crap and if it's wrong what's the worst that could happen? Waste a few prayers? Don't believe it and what do you risk? Well, you risk the punishment they invented for you to be afraid of, actually. And that is no protection against any of the other one and only true and vengeful gods, or devils. Even the Christians themselves are a bit reluctant to use this argument very much, certainly not formally. Although I have had variations of it aimed at me a few times, especially as a parting shot. "But what if you are wrong... " I can often feel the glee behind the sentiments. "Jesus loved him but he has turned his face away, and now must face his fate... frying tonight!"

Utilitarianism to me ranks alongside eugenics as being one of those things that nobody believes in any more, and nobody bothers to justify why. Fine in theory but, for reasons we won't bother to go into, doesn't work in practice, so forget about it, OK? Well, no, actually. I won't. If something seems like a good idea I won't just give up on it at the first setback, like the coyote in Roadrunner cartoons, I will keep on with it until I find it doesn't work at all, or until I can understand why it could never work.

Believing something that doesn't make sense seems to be the height of folly. I will always try to avoid doing it whenever I find myself in that position, but the human capacity to believe things is remarkable, far more powerful than logic.

Martin

Hi Martin

I joined the library in Farnborough today - they didn't have "The Selfish Gene", unfortunately, but I managed to bag a copy of "Unweaving The Rainbow". I read chapter one in my lunch break, and I'm looking forward to reading the rest! I suppose I could ask my dad for his copy of The Selfish Gene, but he's in London, so I'd have to wait a while to get it off him. You didn't mention whether you'd read the Julian Jaynes book that I mentioned a couple of weeks back ("The Origins Of Consciousness In The Breakdown Of The Bicameral Mind"). If you do get around to reading it (or you've read it already) I'd be interested in your opinions.

Quiz

Sorry, I seem not to have had time to put anything more together. I'm still quite distressed that I know so little about people. Every time I try to come up with a good question about people, either I'm not sure enough of my facts to risk it, or my science-brain kicks in and distracts me with stuff about the physics behind what they're famous for, or something! I suppose I must be a "true geek". Oh well, it could be worse. I could be an unsatisfied whinging fantasist with no life, sitting around waiting for the next life...

Mike

Thanks for the quiz stuff, I am still working through it all. I think I will have to ask "What is the best way to get a drink out of a Vogon?" I hope I can do it without choking up too much.

I have published (should-will be have published by the time you may/should have read this) your letter as a Guest Zone article. (We need those new tenses!)

The line about Hendrix is original, feel free to quote me on it. I thought about comparing him to a Jazz musician but it didn't have enough resonance, or truth. I too enjoyed The Meaning of Liff, Kettering has entered the family vocabulary. I haven't read it for a while, but I don't suppose there is much chance of getting it in the library for the next eighteen months or so.

But I do know where my Guide is.

Martin

Hi Martin!

Now that quiz night is over (how did it go, by the way?), and DNA's demise is receding (albeit slowly, I'm still a bit cut up actually...), I'd like to respond to a couple of things you said in an earlier email (10 May). Badges Another good badge thing - a school friend of mine had four of them in a vertical line down his lapel:

"Sex"

"and Drugs"

"and Rock"

"and Roll"

Cool! Well, I thought so at the age of fourteen, anyway.

Slartibartfast

Yes, I've seen the explanation about his name being made up of offensive words - but do you know the story about the typist who was transcribing Douglas's hand-written script? Apparently it was his private joke on her, because the character's name isn't mentioned for ages, and the character himself even says that it isn't important. Douglas was trying to wind the typist up because if the name were never mentioned, he could just as easily have written "Bob", so he was hoping to send her into a rage at having to type this 14-character name on every other line of dialogue!

Baldness

Am I in denial about follicle regression? My dad started losing significant amounts of hair about ten years ago, at the grand age of about 55. His identical twin brother lost his quite a few years earlier, probably through greater stress (he was married about four times, whereas my dad has always been in a more stable relationship). I freely admit that mine was going a little bit thin on the crown before I shaved it off, and I also freely admit that this was at least part of the reason for cutting it. Actually my hair is very fine anyway (we measured it with a micrometer at school and it was the thinnest in the whole class, about 4 micrometres, if I recall correctly) - so any bare patches were bound to be that much more visible, sooner. I've had the beard for many years, so that's nothing to do with it.

Strangely enough, the beard thing was an accident. I was shaving one morning and got distracted halfway through, when I'd only done the sides. When I returned to the task I took a look at the "goatee" and moustache, and thought, "Hey, that's not bad!" Never looked back :-]>

I don't find baldness embarrassing per se, I just think it can sometimes look tidier if it's on a shaved head - and why not? A case in point is a friend of mine called Dick Heckstall-Smith. He's one of the coolest-looking old men I know, and he's been head-shaven for decades now. One thing I certainly never wanted was to end up with the notorious "comb-over" - but I don't think I would ever have done that, even if I'd kept my hair a normal length.

Pascal's Wager

Do you think that we are the only species that has a sense of its own mortality? If so, why specifically do you think that it is so terrifying to most people?

I have to confess (no pun intended) that since a few weeks ago when I made the personal decision not to have any more truck with all this mystical nonsense, I have had a few "What's the use? I'm gonna die one day" moments. I expected this of course, and it doesn't bother me on a large scale, but it got me wondering. What exactly is so scary about death? Is it the fact that we are so used to events following one another in an ordered way, be it with or without a purpose, that we just can't face the fact that one of them will have no successors? Or is it a purely selfish phenomenon of being greedy for more years?

During one of my "scared" moments (and I think everyone probably has them, and should admit to it, otherwise they are hypocrites), if I relax my reason for a second and imagine that I believe in an afterlife, the terror instantly subsides. Is that something that is solely based on my cultural context and upbringing (i.e. I've been taught at some point that people go to heaven), or is there some deeper-seated need for it in the way our brains have evolved? Julian Jaynes would probably say that there is an evolutionary reason, relating to our ancestral mode of consciousness that relied on hallucinated gods for guidance. I wonder what Richard Dawkins would say. What would you say?

Utilitarianism

I've always been ambivalent on this one. It's a great idea but I can't imagine it working. I recall an occasion when I was talking to a friend at University about ethics, and I made the point that, since one can't keep deriving each human right from a prerequisite one ad infinitum, at some point one has to draw the line and say: "We have the right to life, and I'm not going to explain why." He responded with the utilitarian position, and I was interested in it, but thought that (like democracy in its purest definition) it suffered from the (admittedly minor) risk that the majority may see fit to persecute a minority and nothing would stop them - the reason being that anything based at least partly on calculation rather than reasoning is open to interpretation, and interpretation spells vested interests, abuse and corruption.

I therefore concluded that utilitarianism was a double-edged sword. Yes, it could provide a pragmatic solution to many difficult problems, but its lack of philosophical basis gave me cause for concern, and it still does. I understand that the whole point of it is to be pragmatic and that therefore all the fine details would have to be thrashed out to everyone's satisfaction, regardless of how it was implemented, but I still worry that this process (of attempting to reach agreement on what constitutes an "optimum state of minimised suffering") would, without sufficiently strong philosophical grounding, be fraught with pitfalls. In other words, I am not convinced that you could persuade people to accept all the necessary changes to society unless you were armed with strong reasons based on reasoning that everyone could follow. There will always be people who will look at any utilitarian system and say "Well, I'm not accepting that! It's just a load of numbers, and it doesn't feel right to me." Without being able to give them philosophical reasons for what you want to do, you are at their mercy, and the thing won't work unless you apply it via a totalitarian dictatorship (let's FORCE people to be happy!).

Am I being too pessimistic? Perhaps. Who knows, in a few hundred years we might have finally settled down into a system that works so well that no-one will want to change it. I'd love to think that that will happen, but I can't quite believe it. Funny, I used to be such an optimist. Your comment the other day about psychologists referring to the optimism of most poeple as a delusion rang sadly true with me. I've come to realise more and more that things don't just work the way we want. It's taken me quite a while to get there, but at least I'm no longer deluded. Sometimes I'm tempted to go back, though - you know, to be blind and gullible - but happier. Do you ever feel that? If not, you've a stronger mind than I.

Regards,

Mike

Baldness

What do you do if you have long hair by choice and you go bald? It is a tough one. A lot of men do as you do, cut it short and make out that it is their choice and they are happy about it. Who am I to say they are lying? But it does look a little fishy. I am trying to think what I would do. Certainly I would never do the comb over, the embarrassment that must cause on a windy day! I am happy to say that my boyhood hero Bobby Charlton has seen sense and gone for a neat short style and an honest crown rather than the comb it over from the sideburns style. I suppose a short crop is the most sensible option, shaving or reducing to stubble are a bit extreme and does seem to suggest an element of defiance or revenge.

The Quiz

The Quiz went well, of course there were some questions that nobody got right and some disputes but not too many and most people seemed to enjoy themselves, which is the main thing. You can't teach by a quiz, not really, if you try you will come unstuck. I have decided to put in a quiz page on the site, possibly a weekly event, depending on the response. It might be a good way to encourage repeat visits, people will come back for the answers and while they are around they will probably check out the What's New page and the Forum. I think a good mix of questions is the best way to go. I will quite enjoy doing some stuff like identifying quotes, recognising paintings from small detail and other such stuff.

With my stack of encyclopaedia disks and the whole of the world wide web to browse through and sample material from I should be able to come up with lots of material. Then there is the possibility of using audio clips too. It opens up whole new ways to avoid mowing the lawn.

Death

You have made me wonder about whether or not I have understood the issue. The fear of events no longer unfolding in sequence. That had never previously occurred to me. But then, no, that's totally wrong-headed, if I am dead I will have no capacity to appreciate the weirdness of it. So back to the blasé approach to death. I know it is inevitable and so it is hard to get angry about it. Rather like the difference between getting soaked by rain and getting soaked because some moron has driven through the puddle you were standing next to; only one makes us angry, the other we just put up with and grumble about rather ineffectually.

I have never hallucinated a god or anything else. I did once have a mild hallucination after taking a substance that I was informed was a hallucinogen, I can't put my finger on exactly what happened to my perceptions but I am sure that The Amityville Horror was not meant to be a slapstick comedy.

I have never felt that there was a god or a resurrection and eternal life, or reincarnation or any form of spiritual existence. Maybe that isn't normal, but if there is a treatment I don't want it.

Martin

Hi Martin,

This is a bit of a long one, because I worked on it for a couple of days before sending it, and I kept having more ideas on what to say. Sorry!

I've got over halfway through "Unweaving The Rainbow", and I'm really enjoying it. I especially liked the chapter about misinterpretation of coincidences, a subject that's always interested me. I also discovered that among all the romantic fiction and pap, the library's audio books section harboured a little treasure: "The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose - a book about Artificial Intelligence and the nature of consciousness. So I'm listening to that in the car now too - libraries are great, aren't they?

Anyway...

Quote for the day:

“I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.”

Umberto Eco

Baldness

OK! OK! I admit it! I shaved my head in defiance (as well as laziness, appetite for change, desire for better treatment in shops etc.)

Quiz

Glad to hear the quiz went OK. Did you manage to use any of my contributions? I've had a look at the quiz on your site, and I could only answer about three or four questions straight away (and I'm not even sure they're all correct answers either, except the one you've already told me!). I think I might have a closer look later on. Good idea though, a weekly quiz - should keep you busy (not that that's an issue, of course!).

Things no longer unfolding in sequence

I wasn't trying to say that the experience of death was scary, I was talking about the idea of it. So, the fear of events no longer having a successor was intended as an illustration of how our imaginations run away with themselves, causing fear as an interesting and unusual by-product of abstract thought, rather than simple fear of tangible events like getting hurt, or being embarrassed in public.

I think that if I had to place fears on a sliding scale, I would put death at the top of the "abstract fears" list, but still well below more practical things like fear of falling, fear of injury etc. Below death in the list would be relatively minor tremors such as one experiences in contemplating certain great imponderables, like whether or not time had a beginning (which I consider to be a little bit scary, whatever the answer) - and further still, below these, I would place tangible but trivial fears - like fear of being bitten by a mosquito, for example (though this would climb the ranks somewhat if I travelled to a malarial country).

I like the puddle/rain analogy, and I do agree with you, in that for almost all my life (I am excluding those moments of which I spoke, when I occasionally dwell on my mortality), I too have the feeling that there's no point worrying about something inevitable, and usually this enables me to enjoy life more. It's just that - rarely - this approach can break down and make me depressed for a day or two. I don't think I can do a lot about it: the last time it happened was a week or two ago, before I wrote the last email, but the time before that was probably a year or two back. Since last week, the weather's been glorious, I've been getting on with some DIY around the house, planning our wedding etc., and have been happy as could be. So I don't want you to think I'm morose most of the time, because that certainly isn't true. But if somebody asks me whether I ever get scared of dying, I would have to say "Yes, occasionally I do" - because I'd be lying otherwise.

Altered mental states and horror films

Your Amityville Horror story made me laugh! I think you had an experience much like the one I had in my first year at university. One Saturday night, I returned from the bar in my hall of residence, having drunk a couple of snake bites and god knows how much scrumpy (ahem), to find everyone sitting in our communal kitchen watching "The Thing" (the modern colour version) on video. Every time something horrible popped onto the screen, everyone jumped, gasped or screamed - except me. I sat there giggling. I wonder what part of your brain is inactive when you lose the ability to be scared like that? Probably most of it ;-)

Questioning Things

Reading your page, and thinking about memes (although I haven't read any serious books on memes yet, but I get the general idea) has made me begin to question everything that I have ever accepted on faith. Actually, so has the chapter in Dawkins' "Unweaving The Rainbow" that talks about how children's natural impressionability can develop into gullibility in adults.

This doesn't necessarily have to apply only to profound or philosophical topics, either. Take, for example, the rule which most people (including me) were taught while learning to drive: MSM = Mirror, Signal, Manoeuvre. I thought about this yesterday, and concluded that it is wrong! Why should it be so important to look in your mirror before signalling? I agree that it is very important to check your mirror before manoeuvring, of course, but if you are going to manoeuvre, surely you cannot be jeopardising road safety by signalling as early as possible. Where is the harm in first signalling, then checking your mirror, then manoeuvring? If someone behind you is driving dangerously, I can't think of any likely situations where signalling will make things more dangerous than they already were. Therefore, I think the rule should actually be "Signal, Mirror, Manoeuvre", or maybe "Signal/Mirror, Manoeuvre" - which, interestingly enough, is what I tend to do anyway without analysing it.

Intelligent Democracy

I have just read your piece on the Single Transferable Vote System - very educational, thanks for clarifying it for me, as I had never grasped it fully before. I got it completely on the second reading of your text. At first I couldn't work out why there wouldn't be unused votes left over - then I realised that the quota is calculated by dividing the votes cast by the number of candidates, and every vote gets used, so I now understand. Actually, two things occur to me:

Potentially there may be a handful of unused votes left over due to rounding when calculating the quota (up to one less than the number of candidates, i.e. up to 5 in your example) - but as the votes are not sorted, the identity of these unused votes is randomly determined and therefore should not worry a reasonable person overmuch. Actually, I think this could be overcome by rounding the quota up for the purpose of determining whether a candidate were elected, but rounding it down when allocating unused votes - in other words, if the quota is, say 1000.5, then 1001 votes must be cast for a candidate in order to elect them, but only 1000 are allocated to that candidate once elected. So if 1500 votes are cast for such a candidate, then 500 will be left over to re-allocate, rather than 499. Does this make any sense? I hope so, but I've not had time to check it thoroughly, so please excuse any oversights!

If people express only one, or a limited number, of preferences, it is possible that their voting slips may end up unused, although that is the fault of the voter, not the system. However, doesn't this imply that if too many people do this, there may not be enough candidates to fill all the seats? Again, I don't consider this to be a significant drawback, I'm just a mathematician so I like to analyse everything completely :-)

I wonder what the exact rules are in Eire? Do you think a copy is available anywhere? I'd be fascinated to read it. I think I might go and run some computer simulations of various scenarios to see what happens...

I shall certainly be voting in the election, though I'm not entirely sure which way yet. The STVS would have made my decision a lot easier, it must be said. And you are correct - I would have felt a lot more "represented", whatever the outcome.

Did you really chain yourself to the railings? How exciting! Were you on TV?

Some further comments about your site:

Raising kids

"I haven't told either of my children that I do not believe in God, they have yet to ask me. Beetles are a good grounding for an education in atheism. That worked well for Darwin. Add in astronomy and dinosaurs and you have a very good basis. That is my strategy, build up the knowledge that will outflank the religious mumbo-jumbo. I will not try to indoctrinate them. I will let them find out the questions for themselves. But if they ask me any question I give them a straight answer. If they ask me if I believe in God I will tell them, if they ask why I will tell them. I think my son will find that pangolins and tapirs and three thousand species of damselflies offer more insight than his children's book of Noah's Ark."

I just wanted to say that this is very moving - I nearly cried when I read it, in spite of (or perhaps because of) not yet being a parent. You sound like the kind of father that I had when growing up - one who marvelled at nature and passed on his sense of wonder to me very effectively. It's a shame I didn't grasp the full implications right away.

On the realism of fiction...

"In space nobody can hear you scream, but of course a good explosion can be heard. In space spaceships fly like aeroplanes, or if they are really big, like ships. A fighter style space ship flies through the air and through the vacuum of space in exactly the same way as a Spitfire or F15. They can bank and turn with the same grace and G forces as if they were using rudders and flaps against fast moving air. All the action takes place with an obvious plane of the horizontal. Relative speeds shown are always in the same order of magnitude as in a jet aircraft dogfight, stars millions of light-years away blur past as if they were trees on the ground."

Very funny! Exactly my views, and there are numerous gripes relating to Hollywood computers too (let me just hack into this 1980s UNIX system, that just happens to know how to display a gloriously-rendered 3D view of a virtual reality merely in order to check my password...).

But in this instance, I'm coming from a "nit-picking" perspective. The general view I have is rather different, in fact. I disagree with the statement that all fiction should be more real. I think the more worthy purpose of art is to inspire us to do better, not to reflect all of our failings and weaknesses. Haven't you ever heard of the power of positive thinking? How do you think the world is ever going to change for the better unless people have hope? I think people are naturally weak-minded, and literature and other conceptual art forms, done properly, can inspire them to be better people.

By the way, the stars are a little closer than a million light years, but you are still right about their unrealistic movement :-)

Charity and thrill-seeking

"Why not just donate your income direct, tell the boss to direct your earnings for the day to the charity of your choice. Or if your job is so mundane and boring that you don't want to do it any more than you must why not trade places with somebody else for the day instead, that way something that needs doing gets done. And if you want to do something as glamorous as parachuting or trekking in the Himalayas don't have the nerve to dress it up as if you are doing it for some good cause and expect the rest of us to pay for it. I often see people planning their feats of life affirming daring-do, who select the charity with a pin, then expect the rest of the gullible people to pay for it all. "

I have to respond to this, because I actually did one of those charity parachute jumps! Looking back now, I can see an element of it that I am uncomfortable with, i.e. the fact that a proportion of people's contributions paid for my jump (maximum of 50%, I think it was around 40% in the event). I agree that this money could, and should, have gone to the charity (cancer research), not the training centre that provided the facilities. However, on the other hand, it was a prerequisite condition that I make all contributors aware of this subsidy element, which I did, and they were still happy to go ahead (with one exception) - possibly because they knew me and were quite keen to see whether I'd have the balls to jump out of an aircraft at 3,500 feet (oops! I mean 1000m, hey I'm getting the hang of this metric thing now...) - which of course I did, and I thoroughly enjoyed the experience. Although I can now see the immoral element of what I did, surely a utilitarian viewpoint is applicable here? Everyone knew the score, still paid, I enjoyed myself and the charity got some money. Nobody was unhappy.

If you haven't done a parachute jump, I can report that, for me at least, the fear experienced during the plane's ascent was by far the most terrifying part. Everyone was crammed in on top of each other, we couldn't see out because there were no windows, and we couldn't speak because of the noise. So we were each alone with our thoughts, with only the feeble half-smiles of our companions for encouragement. However, once I was sitting in the doorway ready to go, I just looked down and the checkerboard of green fields seemed as harmless as an aerial photograph in an atlas. The impression of danger that we get from being high up seems to be attenuated by the lack of vertical perspective lines (such as the walls of a high building, if we are standing on the roof). So at the moment of jumping, I lost all my fear and just did it.

I would certainly do it again (except that I've got loads of better things to do). The experience of seeing a large empty space below my dangling feet was a total wonder. It was shortly after my jump that I started frequenting theme parks to ride roller coasters (a little hobby of mine that I don't think I've mentioned yet!) so I'm obviously some kind of sensation-junkie. Oh, well - I can think of far worse vices :-)

Sociology degrees

"I went to University when sociology was a trendy subject, cheap to teach, it attracted a lot of lightweight under-motivated students, a high proportion of women. There was a joke I remember quite clearly, "Why don't sociology students look out of the window in the morning? Because they would have nothing to do in the afternoon."

Anecdote alert!

When I was at Southampton University, there was a piece of graffiti in the toilets, which consisted of an arrow pointing to the paper dispenser, with a note saying: SOCIOLOGY DEGREES - PLEASE TAKE ONE. Well I thought it was funny, anyway!

Once I get started I don't know how to stop, so I'll just do it!

Thanks for listening.

Mike

Sociology Degrees

That was a very common bit of graffiti, (or should that be graffito?) I wonder if they now read "Media Studies Degrees, Please Take One"? Student humour travels across the country and the world very quickly. A memetic superhighway of sexual relationships, drug deals, sports fixtures, student political movements, rag week and musical events lead to rapid spreading of good graffiti.

Unweaving the Rainbow

It is a great book. The bit about coincidences is probably the best of its kind. I have often thought in a similar way about coincidences, we are very good at noticing coincidences but we ignore their raw material, incidences, there are a dizzying number of incidences in our lives, the fact that a few of them make patterns is to be expected. Did you see the picture of ET in a fence that was in some newspapers? Very ordinary, not a particularly good likeness. Any shape that is vaguely the shape of a female face or figure is "a perfect likeness of the Virgin Mary", even if it has a black face. Any vaguely male face or figure with a hint of a beard is Jesus. I wonder whether the Soviet Union recorded instances of the face of Marx appearing in damp plaster? Anything faintly human with a big beard would do, the same image in Kansas of course would be declared to be the face of God.

What about those "faces" on Mars? Would you consider building a structure significantly bigger than Avebury or Mount Rushmore and depict such a lousy image? Not me, if I was in charge of something like that I would do something as obviously representational as the faces of Easter Island or the lines in the Peruvian desert (in that place I can't spell with confidence). The last thing that any megalomaniac Martian pharaoh would do is to make something vast that might be dismissed as natural.

Death

I think I understand now, the concept of death as scary. It has never really bothered me that much. The obvious inevitability of it takes away the edge of fear. The idea of worrying about an inevitability is just a logical absurdity. The fundamental weirdness of the concept is something that has not worried me unduly either, perhaps it will now, thanks.

Drugs and the Brain

I am curious about what the effects of drugs are on the brain and the mind. I am reading a book about that subject now, Susan Greenfield, "The Private Life of The Brain". It is a fascinating topic. I do not expect that people taking drugs will be able to understand reality any better, but they may, if properly studied, reveal a lot about the way we see the world, including what makes a horror film frightening, and why some people still want to watch them.

I don't like horror films. I find them tedious. Even thrillers are in the same sort of category. I watch many good films like Jaws and Back to The Future and feel that I want to fast forward through the adrenaline invoking scenes and just get on with the story. I resent having my emotions toyed with by artificial stimulation, especially when my rational brain can see the strings. I also dislike slushy films for similar reasons, and also because I am very easily affected, I am very emotional, I sometimes cry in job interviews, which rarely helps. Watching TV with my family can be a problem when my wife and daughter are blubbing away because of something on the screen, I put on a gruff voice and say it's rubbish, I'll go and check my email, again.

MSM

Good point. I have always been the kind of person that questions things. It always struck me as rather odd to check the mirror before signalling although I can see the occasion which it might be a good idea. Consider you are going to overtake and somebody is already overtaking you, a signal from you (unaware of their presence on your offside wing) might cause them to panic. By checking first you can be sure that there is nobody in the middle of an awkward manoeuvre who might be spooked by your signal into doing something dangerous. Although it would make more sense to point that out at the time rather than teaching a rule without explaining the reasons, because there are lots of people who will ignore rules they do not understand.

Star Wars

Star Wars was playing in the shop today. It was so transparent, Han Solo is a guy with a hot rod, at times it turns into a B17 dodging flak, at other times it is an aircraft carrier under attack by Japanese fighters in the Pacific. Luke is a cowboy, son of a Oklahoma prairie farmer gone to seek his fortune as a gunslinger and to save the princess from the ogre's tower. They travel around with a gay jester and an uppity pedal bin.

But don't forget the thoroughly evil scene when the rational American rationalist is put in his place by the special effects and the script, proving that mind is more powerful than matter. (The bit where the bloke with a chamber pot on his head fences with an angry football and beats it.) If it was any cheesier you could serve it with crackers.

I have just been struck by a curse of modern technology. Word's grammar checker doesn't like me to use the phrase any more cheesy, so it suggests cheesier, which ten seconds later the spell checker objects to. Now I have put both in a sentence, so what will you do about it? (Is it a sign of madness to be writing to my software? Or should that be writing AT my software? And is there any writer in the world who uses as many question marks as I do? And is that something to be worried about or proud of?)

Is this sad or what, I just checked it out with my Concise Oxford Dictionary and so I will stick with cheesier. (Oh stop it! I'm right, you're wrong, leave me alone. Now what! Stops it? Are you mad?) (See screenshot for the full sublime comedy effect)

STV

I don't really know the precise mathematics, so I have rewritten the page in a way that should preserve my blushes if I get it a bit wrong. I am not a naturally mathematical person, not by any stretch of the imagination. I suppose if you are really keen there is likely to be a public information site that explains it for the Irish people. Am I that curious? No.

I did once fully understand it, the system is widely used in student council elections. I stood to be returning officer and lost to some cretin with more friends and less of a clue as to what it was all about. As part of my campaign I made sure I could conduct a single transferable vote with my eyes closed while under enemy fire, and drunk.

My Arrest

It was a carefully managed stunt. The ringleaders had discovered that the normal by-laws that protect the Palace of Westminster from such activity have to be enacted afresh for each parliamentary session, so on the day in question it was not a serious offence, so we knew the worst that could happen was a charge of obstruction. It was timed to coincide with an orderly procession of newly elected Liberal and SDP MPs, we knew there would be cameras.

I was one of 15 students, principally the national committee of the Student Campaign for Electoral Reform and their flatmates and/or sleeping partners, but no law students. We were tipped off not to go if we were studying law as a conviction might be bad for the career. (So very radical, that part). It was all over in about two minutes. We turned up in a couple of taxis, got out the chains and chained ourselves to the railings. A couple of shouts and the TV crews were around us, a couple more and the police were there with bolt cutters. We were bundled off to the station and held in the cells for about forty minutes then bailed. We then got taken to the National Liberal Club for tea.

We got a one year conditional discharge for obstruction. Slap hands naughty children if you do it again. No damage to property, other than the chain bought for the purpose, no harm to the public, I didn't see anybody obstructed, any passers-by enjoyed the show. Apparently we made about ten seconds each on BBC and ITN news.

Charity Jump

Perhaps I was a little hard on them, or maybe not. I hope I never get some eager extrovert shoving a form in front of me asking for sponsorship to have their head shaved or anything of the sort. Perhaps our society needs activities like this for the mesomorphs with more vitality and enthusiasm than is good for the rest of society, a better alternative than a crusade. Alternatively I suppose we could just reinstate the idea of the knightly quest, and send them all off on some foolish and potentially fatal search for something we don't really need and never expect to find; the Holy Grail, the fountain of youth or Manchester City's trophy room.

Martin

If you would like a copy of the book, "The Hitch-Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy", please write to:

Megadodo Publications

Megadodo House

Ursa Minor

enclosing three pounds ninety-five for the book, plus five hundred and ninety-seven billion, eight hundred and twelve thousand, four hundred and six pounds, 7p postage and packing.

I have a theory: the number intended was probably 597,812,406.07, but Peter Jones said 'billion' where he should have said 'million', so it ended up as 597,000,812,406.07 - or is it 597,000,000,812,406.07? It depends how you define a billion. I may have more to say about this in another email :-)

Hope this helps

Thanks, that is exactly what I wanted. [Hitch Hiker information]

It strengthens my "memory is a vector, not a bitmap" theory. I knew the gist, the cadence and the essence of the joke, but I forgot most of the actual words.

Have you any ideas about how I raise the profile of the site? I have managed to bring quite a few people in, keep some for a while, and encourage some to revisit sporadically but I still come across far too many people who find it in a rather random way, like yourself. There must be a huge potential audience out there that is currently untapped, people who would love to find the site but don't know to look. Any suggestions are welcome. I have posted a notice about the quiz to 12 newsgroups this morning, including alt.mensa, rec.games.trivia and free.uk.puzzles. I have also hit a few (OK, 18) groups with a posting about pornography including a few likely sounding political and religious groups. I need some more ideas. By the way, if you ever have a few hours to kill you can dig up a quite ridiculous amount of stuff by tapping "martin willett" into any search engine that is savvy about newsgroups.

The way the Internet is growing at the moment is quite mind numbing isn't it? To think, a mere 500 years ago it was just about practical for a man to learn everything worth knowing, to read every significant book published in Europe and to be fluent in all the important languages. Now the equivalent feat would be quite unthinkable, it is tough enough to keep abreast of a single narrowly defined subject matter or to have a journalist's working general knowledge of a few topics. I can't even follow a few threads in a couple of newsgroups and watch the few TV programs that are worth the effort without missing stuff. Can our culture go on expanding exponentially like this without the people burning out? Will we all have to have a brain the size of a planet to cope?

Hi Martin,

glad I could help with the HH stuff. I've been compiling this email for a few days now, during which time we've had a couple of other conversations, hence the topics are drawn from diverse sources!

Woo-hooo! The library had a copy of "The Selfish Gene" today! Needless to say , I have bagged it, but I won't start it until next week because I want to finish my Adams book first ("Last Chance To See..." - it's very funny and interesting, have you read it?).

Hitch-hiker links http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2 - The Earth edition of the Guide, as founded by The Digital Village, under the influence of Douglas (I use the term 'influence' in a similar way to 'under the influence of alcohol' - and probably with good reason!).

The rest will have to follow when I get home, as that's where my main bookmark list is!

"Memory is a vector, not a bitmap"

I like this. Reminds me of one of those "whatever happened to...?" Tomorrow's World items. The one I'm thinking of is "fractal TV". The idea was to transmit a continuous signal that could be received by any television of whatever resolution, and still used to display the same image. The scan line, instead of moving gradually down the screen from left to right, wiggled about instead, in a "fractal" pattern, meaning that it looked the same at whatever magnification level one chose. The result: Low-resolution screens could ignore the smaller wiggles and use their average value to display a coarser image, while high-resolution ones could make full use of the information. A great idea, but one that has been superseded before it even got going, following the development of MPEG.

I just thought that your analogy of vectors and bitmaps was quite similar, i.e. I had the high-res picture of the information, and you only had the low-res, but because of the similarity, you still knew what shape it was. I also wonder whether biochemistry has any good examples of an analogy to this.

Raising profile of site

One general idea occurs to me: I may be wrong, but I get the feeling that your site is currently 'seeded' to attract humanities people - I don't think this is intentional, but that's the impression I get. I think there are a lot of scientific types out there (like me!) who are also interested in politics/philosophy etc., and would be turned on by the evolutionary ideas too. Maybe it would be worth trawling a few science communities. Perhaps a few 'trolls' in the science groups, while not necessarily as confrontational as those in religious ones, could nevertheless be a way of sparking interest?

The Web

Yes, I find the world wide web quite awesome now. I remember that even as far back as 1995 (wow, that sounds stupid in geological terms!), when I began to use it, it seemed like a global encyclopaedia. I seem to remember waxing lyrical about it one night when I had some friends over for dinner. They of course wanted a demonstration, and I obliged by picking up an empty wine bottle, entering into a search engine the name of the particular type of Benedictine Monks who made the wine, and coming up with two or three scholarly articles about the monasteries, their history, the fact that they made wine and all the rest of it. No-one was more impressed than I was, because that was the first time I had really searched for anything that I considered obscure, and it hadn't let me down.

The only thing I think we have to watch is that there is so much bullshit out there - I'm sure you'll agree with me on that. The trick, of course, is to develop a feel for which web authors are trustworthy and which have ulterior profit motives or are ignorant - or both!

Quiz

OK, I'll see if I can come up with some more questions, but you know by now that they'll probably have a science/maths bias!

I've also sent you some answers for quiz 3, but I haven't done very well, I'm afraid! Now, give me a cryptic crossword and it might be a different matter... While I think of it, I was going to remind you to update your A-Z index and contents pages - I think they should both refer to the Quiz page(s).

Rednecks and Rattlesnakes

I've just read your new article about heroes. I like it very much. You covered the problem of a/immorality very well, and for years I have been living with the same feelings of discomfort, identified only as a mild irritation at seeing yet another Sheriff's car pull out behind a stranger ("Y'ain't fruhm 'round these parts, are yah, bwoy?"). I had come to feel that the whole 'Southern State' thing must be exaggerated. Surely they can't all be racist, intolerant rednecks with corrupt police forces (though undoubtably, some are)? I think Hollywood has all-too-easily jumped on the 'Southerners-are-stupid' bandwagon, and is, ironically, just as guilty as its fictional rednecks, of a different kind of racism!

An interesting exception to this rule is the scene near the end of "Porky's": Having crossed the county line, Porky's car gets smashed up by the "Good Sheriff" while the "Bad Sheriff" and his henchmen can only look helplessly on from a few paces away in their own county. This is obviously a bit of an ambiguous exception, but I thought it'd be a laugh to mention it anyway :-)

I do think that more needs to be said about how heroes should be portrayed in fiction, as well as how they shouldn't. My idea of a "correctly-portrayed" hero would be any character who shows integrity, not perfection; humanity, not slushiness; tenacity, not dogmatism; defence-of-the-innocent, not gratuitous violence. In other words, someone that people can see is potentially real, but whom they can also emulate in an attempt to better themselves.

I know this sounds quite moralistic and stuffy, but I believe that the purpose of fiction (and many forms of art in general) is not only one of entertainment, but also one of propagation of good memes. People are naturally lazy, tending towards at best an apathetic attitude, at worst a criminal one. Surely a few morality tales thrown into the mix can only do good, not harm.

Sobering thoughts from a commuter

According to my Dilbert desk calendar, today is National Environment Day (June 5th). This made me wonder idly whether I could do my bit by walking home. Then it hit me, what it would actually mean for me to walk home the 43 miles from Farnborough to Southampton. It's a huge distance, and I estimate that, even if I didn't have a particularly bad back today (which I do: it comes from lifting too many keyboards and amps in and out of vans during most of my twenties...), it would certainly take me a lot longer to cover the distance than the time I've spent at work today. Probably about twice as long, in fact, allowing for getting tired and taking breaks. I think it's all too easy to forget what an enormous impact the car has had on our lives.

Seeing the strings

I, too, get impatient at action scenes in films - although it does depend what mood I'm in; sometimes I 'veg out' and just let it all wash over me. For my mental health, I probably shouldn't - but I get tired and can't be bothered to focus. Anyway, I have a long history of spotting errors on TV and in films. I think it's down to my time spent in the film-making club at University, and subsequent lodging in the house of a bloke who was in the same club, and went on to make videos for a living. He was constantly showing me the smoke and mirrors, and I fell into the habit too. I know that it annoys some people, but sometimes I can't help myself, I'll sit there watching TV and say stuff like:

"I can actually hear three voices and there's only one person singing"

"A car wouldn't survive that jump"

"I just saw that brick wall rock in the breeze!" (Prisoner Cell Block H)

"Boom in shot!"

or even

"if they're really having sex, his willy's L-shaped!"

There's even a book about this - I've got it at home somewhere. It's called "The Killjoy's Book Of The Cinema: A Schmovie-Goer's Companion". It lists hundreds of films and tells you exactly where the mistakes are in them. Most are trivial continuity errors like someone's hat teleporting to their head from a hook between shots, but many are more serious, and some are downright hilarious.

What is a billion?

This question has bothered me since childhood. The original English billion was 1E12, or 1,000,000,000,000. The U.S. billion has always been 1E9, or 1,000,000,000. Both countries now seem to have adopted 1E9 as the standard.

I can think of good reasons for adopting either of the two, and it is one of those situations where practicality has triumphed over logic. To explain:

1E12 is the logical choice. Why? Because of the "avoid repetition" rule: Make up a new name for a power of ten when you have actually run out of names, but not before. This rule, unfortunately, does have one exception, but is otherwise quite straightforward. So,

1E0 is 1 known as "one"

1E1 is 10, known as "ten"

1E2 is 100, known as "a hundred"in order to avoid having to say "ten tens"

1E3 is 1,000, known as " a thousand" (this is the exception, because we could have said "ten hundred"!)

1E4 is 10,000, known as "ten thousand" (combination of words)

1E5 is 100,000, known as "a hundred thousand"

1E6 is 1,000,000, known as "a million" in order to avoid having to say "a thousand thousands" etc.

I think that the exception of a thousand can be allowed because a thousand is a number that is manageable in human terms - we can just about picture it (e.g. a 10x10x10 cube), but we can't really picture anything much larger without abstract reasoning. Therefore, its more everyday use makes it a candidate for having its own special name.

This rule makes it clear that 1E9 is to be called "a thousand million", and the word "billion" is not needed until we reach 1E12.

1E9 is the practical choice. Why? Mainly because of capitalism. Large corporations and governments earn or spend figures that are more often expressed as thousands of millions than they are as millions of millions. Hence, it is wasteful to say "a thousand million", and the word "billion" is easier. It is exactly the same kind of exception as "thousand", above, except that in this case a much larger number has become one that has an everyday meaning, due to increasingly global societies and volumes of trade. I would imagine that if a million million were ever mentioned on the news, that is precisely what they would call it - "a million million".

As for trillion, quadrillion and the rest of them, I'm not even going to go there at this stage! Let the dictionary-compilers sort them out :-)

Mike

Disgraceful, isn't it? The turnout, I mean :-(

I was very interested to see this map:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/vote2001/results_constituencies/pol_ map.stm

It seems that, seen from space, the tories have almost equalled labour :-|

Of course what it really shows is that tory voters live in rural areas and there aren't so many of them per square mile...!

Mike

Voting is important, it is the equivalent of joining the family around the dinner table or getting up and following your visitors to the door when they leave or inviting your flatulent uncle to your family party; it is a bonding ritual. By voting you show that you care.

I hate the shallow cynicism so prevalent today, especially among the young. "They're only in it for themselves" they all bleat, with no evidence, and agree with each other mindlessly. That attitude is widespread but it is dead wrong. Most politicians have the ability to earn more outside the house than in it and very few people go into politics as a career move. People do it to serve, to do good as they see it. That goes for the vast majority of them in all parties. Things may well be different in countries where corruption is endemic, but where fair play and democracy hold sway politicians are men and women of honour.

As in any walk of life there are shady dealings and murky motives, the odd person who has their own amoral attitude but as a rule I would trust a politician more than the average citizen. An occupational hazard of politics is having to say things which you know could be expressed in a different way, not lies as much as simple spin, putting a gloss on the story. This is as inevitable for a politician as it is to many other walks of life. I have been involved with direct sales and estate agency and I have seen politicians up close and personal. I don't regard politicians as any more dishonest as any salesman, and many are as honourable as any person you are ever likely to meet. Only a backbench MP can be free to speak the truth, but they are not expected to, they are expected to toe the party line and to stand up for their constituency, even to gain an unfair advantage for their constituency.

Another way of looking at that map is that the Tories own more extensive property. Did you notice the snobby accents of so many of the Tory candidates? It was quite noticeable. The journalists, Labour and Liberal Democrats seemed to have a range of voices with slight regional accents (except Shawn Woodward, obviously) but the Tories stood out, Hague was not typical of his party. So many Tory candidates (thankfully largely defeated candidates) came across as Public School educated Hooray Henrys.

But the biggest impression was, as you noted, the disgracefully low turnout.

Do you remember that woman who shouted at Tony Blair about hospitals? You should have done this that and the other, blah, blah, rant, rant. And when a journalist asked which way she voted last time she said she didn't, and wouldn't. She was a disgrace. What did you think about John Prescott's eggschange of views escapade? I think it is disgraceful that people treat politicians like that, treating them as objects. Politicians are people first and deserve simple good manners. By all means wave placards, and by all means shout for a time (but not all the time) but throwing things at people is wrong. Violence like that is totally inappropriate.

Well, I'd better leave it at that or I'll start sounding like an announcer on The Home Service, as it is I have a vision of Sir Alec Douglas Home floating about in my head, I must shift that before I go to bed or I'll never get a good night's sleep. (Never mind that shag).

Martin

Hi Martin,

Just been reading some of "Mark 7" and I spotted the chart (graph about ice ages). If the pattern on this chart continues, I reckon we have about another 20,000 years. Take a look at it. The scale is non-linear. The last "stable period", even though it looks titchy, is about 30,000 years long. Am I right?

So what's the fuss about then? :-)

Mike

Don't ask me, ask Mark, there is a link to his email on the page. Personally I see the pattern of chaos most of the time and relative stability at the "present", which might end and resume the more normal chaos, ice ages etc. But talk to Mark.

Martin