Dec 292016
 

As a vegetarian (who doesn’t intentionally go around prophesying) I often encounter the hackneyed old “but we’re evolved to eat meat”. The obvious response is that just because we’re evolved for a certain kind of behaviour does not mean we should necessarily follow it. And of course, it’s not true – we’re evolved to be omnivores not carnivores.

But here’s the thing: Eating certain forms of meat exclusively for a moderately extended period of time can cause death by what is effectively starvation. As a very rough rule of thumb, the wilder an animal is, the leaner its meat is likely to be. So any of our ancestors who ate nothing but meat were likely to be at best severely malnourished and likely to die young.

Of course our ancestors didn’t eat like that or we wouldn’t be here. They ate anything they could get their hands on – animals that didn’t run fast enough, proto-vegetables, grains, fruits, nuts. Anything that wasn’t poisonous.

We’re also evolved to eat more than we need. The idea is that we store fat in reserve for hard days ahead, but these days any “hard days” rarely involve lack of food. Another example of how we should be prepared to intelligently disregard evolved eating habits.

Does this mean we should all become vegetarian? No, of course not. There are plenty of reasons to stop eating meat, but this is not one. It may be a good reason to eat meat less frequently – have high quality meat three times a week rather than junk meat seven times a week.

The New Defence

Dec 282016
 

There is an interesting video from 33c3 dealing with drone killings :-

As an aside, one of the thing that makes the Chaos Computer Club congress more interesting than many security conferences is the attention given to more “political” issues.

Drones offer the enticing possibility of tackling terrorist groups without putting people at risk, but the reality is somewhat different.

  1. Drone killings are in effect an act of war against the citizen(s) of a foreign country; very often where war has not been declared. To put it into perspective what if the UK operated drones in the 1970s and targeted US citizens who were helping to fund the IRA? And sometimes these actions resulted in “regrettable collateral damage”?
  2. Why is it not possible to provide information on targets to the law enforcement officials in the country where the target is living? It is possible that the law enforcement officials are compromised in some way of course (for example the US authorities were often against dealing with IRA terrorism), but not in all cases.
  3. Who decides that a target is so evil that they deserve death from the sky? The obvious solution here is a higher court order rather than an arbitrary decision by the military, although secret court orders are almost as bad as arbitrary military decisions. At the very least, such court orders must be made public after the death of the target.
  4. Just how reliable are drone killings anyway? How many times have we heard of “collateral damage” (the sanitised version of “Ooops! We killed the wrong people.”)? And how many times have we not heard of collateral damage? Many videos of drone killings show vehicles being targeted which leads to the most obvious problem – you do not know that the target is within the vehicle and you do not know that he or she is alone in the vehicle.
  5. “Spinning” the effectiveness of drone killings by counting all “military aged males” as militants unless they can be demonstrated to be innocent (i.e. guilty until proven innocent) is about as despicable as it gets. You cannot claim to be in the right if you resort to such claims.

It is all too easy to claim that we’re all under threat from terrorism and that anything that might reduce that threat is justified. But criminal activity by governments is never justified.

Dec 282016
 

“You’re such a pedant” goes the insult as though being right about something is somehow wrong.

Now don’t get me wrong – there are some areas where being a pedant is not entirely right – such as declaring that Christmas Day isn’t a bank holiday but instead a common-law holiday. But there are many areas where being pedantic and precise is not just the right thing, it is essential.

I work in IT, and many of the biggest problems in IT are down to lack of precision and not getting things right. I can’t recall the number of times things have gone wrong or have been delayed (probably the most common result) because things have not been specified clearly enough, with enough detail, and correctly.

So in certain specialised areas – such as IT – it is good to be pedantic and precise. Include too much information rather than too little.

 

Dec 172016
 

In the dim and distant past when dinosaurs roamed the data centre (although it was called the machine room, or for trendy types who liked to keep up to date, the computer room), sometimes called the 1970s, a new type of computer gradually started to appear. This computer was intended to be used by one individual at a time, and more it was intended to be part of the furniture of an office (in the sense it belonged). It became known as the personal computer.

To quote Steve Wozniak: “To me, a personal computer should be small, reliable, convenient to use and inexpensive“. Of course “inexpensive” is relative and we wouldn’t think the personal computer of the 1970s was inexpensive. When you trawl through old copies of BYTE, please remember that when you get shocked at the prices that you have to add in inflation!

The field of personal computers grew so quickly that most of the dinosaur behemoths grew interested and joined in. One – the IBM PC – grew so popular that IBM grew to regret throwing it together so quickly, and it eventually came to dominate the market. Except for a small bunch of weirdos who insisted that the Apple Mac was the bees knees, and that the PC would soon die.

The argument between the two groups of fanatics grew so heated that “PC” become synonymous with the IBM PC – even well after IBM stopped dominating the market, and Macs were excluded from the “PC” label. Even after they become PC in all but name – today an Apple machine is no different to a normal PC from someone like Dell, HP, etc. except from the operating system.

Yet because of that ridiculous “cold war” between the Microsofties and the Applites, every time I issue a communique I have to use the phrase “PCs and Macs” because some cold war era warrior will claim “… but you didn’t say anything about Macs” or “… but not Macs?”.

So in the interests of clarity, although when I say PCs I mean both, I shall start using the phrase inclusive personal computers. Or iPCs.

And no, I don’t mean the Sun IPC.

 

Dec 162016
 

Without doubt, there will shortly be a pompous old fart moaning about how the meaning of christmas is being lost in the swirl of holiday celebrations. She (or he) will be droning on about the religious message. Only christians are supposed to celebrate, and are supposed to stick to the script – heading to a church in the middle of the night to listen to a pompous old fart drone on about some weird stuff.

Poppycock!

Not that I object to people wanting to listen to a pompous old fart droning on about weird stuff – that’s their choice. What I object to is being told I have to celebrate Christmas in their way. Despite the name, I can decide to celebrate it any way I want.

Now I could go on about how Christmas is merely a new name for a mid-winter festival that has been going on for thousands of years, or that some christians avoid Christmas like it sprang fully formed from the mind of Satan. And I probably have in the past, but that is beside the point.

For whatever reason, it has been decided in the western world (and a bit further) that most of us will have a few days (or a week) off work in the middle of winter for a break. And we choose how to celebrate.

To me, Christmas is about family and friends. Getting together and relaxing for a while – a few hours, or a few days.

Happy Winter Solstice from this pompous old fart, and celebrate it any way you choose.