• Friday 19th Oct

remembering those cats

I'm a Mac user, as you can imagine. When reading Mac related news, browsing for software and updates etc. I always come across phrases like "Works on Tiger and Panther but is a bit flakey on Puma..." For those not in the Mac club, Apple name their Operating Oystems after big cats, so Tiger for example, is actually "Mac OS 10.4".

This is all vaguely annoying because I can never remember which cat is which OS and have to go off to find out, usually by consulting Wikipedia, which drags me further off on a tangent because I always find something elese fascinating to read and end up following links that takes me even further away from the initial task... and so on.

Finding out what version Puma is just now has taken me so far away from the task in hand that I'm now adding an entry to this site!

Back to top.

• Saturday 18th Aug

mouse brain

The last I heard, scientists studying artificial intelligence had made a computer simulate a brain as complex as... wait for it... a cockroach's. Today I heard a snippet about scientists making a simulated brain as complex as half a mouse's brain. Whilst this is a staggering leap forward - from insect to mammal with no reptile brain in between - it brings home just how astounding our brains are.

Apparently this simulated half mouse brain could only work at one tenth of the speed of a real mouse's brain and could only run for 10 seconds because of the limitations of the 4096 processor computer which had over a million Mb of RAM!

It reminds me of what Arthur C Clarke said about making computers like HAL: (Paraphrased) Making intelligent brains the old way by unskilled people will always be easier and cheaper and more fun.

Keep up the good work.

Back to top.

• Saturday 23rd Jun

magnetic quackery

I noticed an advertisement for magnet therapy bracelets in my local chemist shop today. Claiming to promote bloodflow, realign the body's magnetic aura and penetrate into the flesh and bone and thus provide a gentle massage effect. Other benefits included warding off aches and pains, improving the body's takeup of healthy minerals and vitamins and helping with weight loss. There was also an allusion to releiving embarrassing performance problems experienced by "older or infirm" men in the bedroom!

Back to top.

Wednesday 30th May

hitchens or hitchens

Peter Hitchens says in the Mail on Sunday 27-5-07 (a friend brought it to our flat!) that Atheists are only "good" because it suits us. Well, who would you rather hang around... a bunch of Atheists who are good and moral by default for no other reason than we think it's the best way to behave: Or a bunch of pious believers who are immoral crooks by default and only suppress their nefarious tendencies because they think it advances them to a better place when they die; people who're only good because they see a personal gain in it; only good because it lines their own metaphorical pockets?

Peter H squarely blames Atheists in "the rougher edges of the West's cities" for all the woes of mankind, apparently because Atheists believe that we can behave just as we like and and believe that the strong and ruthless have a right to terrorise the weaker members of society.

Does Peter H live in a cuckoo-nut tree? Hasn't he heard of the church's elite army of child molesting priests? Hasn't he heard of Mother Teresa's condemnations of abortion that have lead central American governments to criminalise it, and incarcerate for 30 years young victims of rape who have presented to medical establishments with complications arising out of back-street procedures? Hasn't he heard of the special department both the Catholic and English churches have set up to counter the bad publicity they receive from the immoral and sexually deviant behaviour of their priests. Hasn't he seen the long, well attended and elaborate funeral processions that used to follow East End criminals to their Church of England grave yards, with their tasteless flower crucifixes and "DAD" monstrosities? Hasn't he heard of... the list is endless.

Peter H also says we Atheists don't dare criticise Muslims. Hasn't he read Carl Sagan, Michael Shermer, Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris? The thing is; Atheists explore Islam from a non-biased, learned and respectful point of view that Muslims have trouble taking too much issue with. They may very strongly disagree, but they're not offended. Religious believers criticise Islam from an irrational and confrontational "I'm right, you're wrong: our collection of Mythological Writings of Magic and Nonsense says so" point of view.

On the other hand Christopher Hitchens, writing in The Times today (I found it on a bus!), says that religion is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free enquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children..." I couldn't have said it better, except for some stronger language. I dare you true believers to contradict this; I can quote many passages from your Mythological Writings of Magic and Nonsense that proselytise all these shortcomings.

Back to top.

Saturday 12th May

girl guides

A close friend's daughter was due to be initiated into the Girl Guides recently. On visiting the friends today I learned she ducked out of the initiation at the last minute because she couldn't bring herself to promising to worship god.

I am so pround of her! And I don't know why; I didn't have anything to do with her doubt and suspicion of religion, I have never spoken to her on the subject of my thoughts on religion nor have I ever heard her say anything on the subject. I'm not in the business of disaffecting children from the paths their parents have chosen or making enemies of friends who have religious beliefs.

I think I'm proud and pleased because its rare to find a 10 year old who isn't afraid to question, make up her own mind and stick to her own principles. She certainly has wisdom beyond her years.

Back to top.

Thursday 26th April

keep your children away from church

When are we going to do something about the church's elite army of child molesters?

It's obscene that stories of vicars being left to abuse children for years whist their superiors deliberately look the other way or actively protect them come up in the media with sickening regularity. Peter Halliday, jailed today for child sex abuse, was allowed to leave the church quietly several years ago when he promised to behave. What kind of utter idiots are these church people? This guy has been forcing himself sexually on to choirboys for years, why do they think he's going to keep promises and tell the truth?

Bishop David Wilcox said "I believe that we sought to act in the best interests - not only of the Church, but of the family and of everybody concerned at that time," Best interest of the church yes! What kind of morals does this Bishop Wilcox uphold if he thinks letting a child molester go unpunished is best for the victims and their families? Can you hear that sound..? It's the sound of my mind boggling.

This is yet another example of the undeserved respect the church enjoys. If it was chief executives of large multinational companies who were found to be molesting children whilst their peers turned a blind eye, or if they had a special department to deal with the press on issues of their staff abusing children, there would be wholesale uproar and heads would roll. Why are the pious religious types allowed to get away with it?

Back to top.

Thursday 29th March

ssssmokin'!

It's about to be banned in "enclosed public spaces" in England and Wales soon. Fantastic!

Putting aside the fact you will suffer a slow painful death from cancer; it's stinky, dirty, disgusting, stings my eyes, nose and throat and leaves my clothes reeking of that horrible dead ashtray smell... and I'm not a smoker. My partner and I do enjoy the pub a bit too much though and our enjoyment of a relaxing pint or two is ruined most of the time by inconsiderate brain-dead smokers.

There are several things to note here.

Smokers have lost their sense of taste and smell, so they don't know how disgusting smoking makes them. Smokers are stupid, they have wrecked their brain function. Quite simply, this must be true or they wouldn't smoke. Smokers are too stupid to realise that smoke travels through the air, and they're too stupid to realise that some people don't like, or hate, the stinky cancer-causing pollution smoking fills the room with.

Smokers are always proclaiming things like, "It's people's choice to smoke. What about people who just want to relax with a smoke and a drink?" Well surely its my choice to relax with a drink and breathe clean, fresh smelling, unpolluted air that isn't going to kill me. My breathing fresh air in no way impinges on or effects smokers, but their smoking pollutes my air, makes it poisonous and makes my eyes, nose and throat sting. Where's the common sense here?

Smokers are almost universally inconsiderate and arrogant about their addiction, and obviously unable to police themselves and behave appropriately which is why it was necessary to pass laws to protect non-smokers. They only have themselves to blame; the laws may have been unnecessary had smokers behaved more responsibly.

I'm worried about the pubs loosing out, but again they only have themselves to blame. The vast majority of non-smokers I know do not go to the pub precisely because they can't stand the smoke. Pubs have encouraged the smokers and at worst shunned, at best done nothing to encourage the non-smokers. Now non-smokers have gotten out of the pub habit. This was a short sighted attitude to adopt because non-smokers have more money, more health, a heartier appetite, higher metabolism and can sustain a larger and longer lasting erection! All good reasons for preferring them as customers in my reckoning.

Back to top.

Sunday 25th March

degrees of quackery

Heard on the radio today that someone wants to offer a course for those seeking a homeopathy degree. I know there are already "degree" courses available in this superstition but I'm dismayed to learn that they are still being set up and the following of homeopathy is growing.

Where's the common sense? I wonder if it's following would be growing if people knew the truth...

Homeopathy is pure invention: it wasn't discovered, it was invented by Samuel Hahnemann in the 1800s and is not a system of herbal remedies as most people think. The mantra is "similia similibus curentur" which means you treat "like with like". So to cure headaches you have to take something that is known to cause headaches. Most of the substances prescribed or taken in homeopathy are poisonous and are so because they must cause the disorder you are suffering from. So as not to kill off all their patients, homeopathists dilute the poisons. They dilute the poisons so much that often there is none of the original substance left in the "medicine" you're paying good money for. All you're left with is distilled water or sugar pills. To explain this nonsense homeopathists invented a fantastic new and unproved quality of water: it apparently has a memory and the memory of the substance that has been diluted out of existence is "imprinted" on the water's memory.

Aside from all the nonsense you've read already, why has no one realised that if water has this magical memory and imprinting ability then, by now, all the water on the Earth must have a memory and an imprint of all the homeopathic "cures" available. In future, don't give money to a con-artist homeopath - just take a drink of tap water!

Whilst homeopaths will quote study after study that "proves" it works, they ignore the properly conducted scientific studies that prove it doesn't. In recent years calls for real proof have grown louder so homeopaths have "discovered" a proclamation by it's inventor that goes something like this: homeopathy can not be proven by scientific tests therefore it should not be tested.

In addition to homeopaths conning good folk out of their hard-earned, there is a much more serious and insidious side to alternative medicine generally. Thousands and thousands of people have died because they have sought help from this quackery and delayed seeking real medical help. I say, "Stamp it out - unless they can come up with scientific proof of it's efficacy, make it illegal."

Back to top.

Saturday 17th March

healing the health service

The Conservatives say they can "save" the NHS! It probably wouldn't have needed so much "saving" had they not run it into the ground before 1997.

We have more and newer hospitals than we had under the Tories, doctors and nurses are paid more, waiting lists are vastly improved, we have better access to higher technology and advanced procedures, the list is endless.

There's no doubt there is a lot of room for improvement and Labour have made some serious gaffes. But the improvements made, in the face of greater demand and expectation are not to be dismissed.

We have very short memories. As soon as they are back in power we'll suddenly remember what they're like. Tories and Tory voters would rather cut the Police force and spend money on their own personal security. They'd rather spend less on the health service and buy their own medical insurance. They'd rather spend less on maintaining the roads and have their cars repaired more often...

Why do the Socialists have to try so much harder than the Capitalists to get any recognition for their achievements? Is it simply expectation?

Do we, as a nation, think "I'm not happy, I expect more from the Socialists" because we expect them to stand up for the man in the street, and "well, I suppose we're lucky they've given us that" because Capitalists are expected to simply line their own pockets?

Back to top.

Tuesday 13th March

iLegal iTunes

I heard on some non-UK radio station last night that some European countries are trying to legislate against Apple's iTunes Store because it's tracks only work on iPods.

This is a type of copy protection called DRM and is in place at the insistence of the music industry. Apple are on record saying they'd rather there was no DRM on iTunes music but the European governments have sided with the music industry and have given the green light for it to stay.

The only answer, according to those who want to legislate against iTunes, is for Apple to share its industrial secrets and copyrights with its rivals, or close it down.

So: It seems politicians are in favour of the record companies and musicians monopolising their intellectual property but are insisting that Apple just give theirs away. Is it right that a bunch of business-obsessed politicians should deny iPod users their iTunes just because it can't be used by everyone? The iTunes store was set up purely to service iPod users.

Yes, I'd rather there was no DRM at all, but it sounds all wrong to me. Why don't they ban television because it can't be enjoyed by radio users?

Besides, the whole issue seems to have come up simply because politicians are not savvy with the technology. Anyone with a modicum of tech knowledge knows that absolutely anyone can buy a track from iTunes, make it into a music CD with one mouse click, then re-import the track into any MP3 or music player on the market. Everyone can enjoy iTunes, it's just easier if you have an iPod.

Back to top.

Thursday 8th March

I'm free!

It's sad to hear John Innman died today; he was a good laugh and a good man. As some one pointed out on the radio today, even his name was a double entendre.

Back to top.

Wed 7th March

wikiligion

So; the religious zealots are unhappy that Wikipedia is too Liberal and not religious enough. They are starting up their own version of Wikipedia to redress the balance. (BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, 7-3-07)

Well isn't this just another example of just how nasty religious nuts really are? They can't control something as democratic and peer reviewed as Wikipedia, like they do so many other things so they moan and complain and make their own skewed version, more suited to their tastes. They have their historic hooks in the media, we're forced to listen to "Morning Worship" and the pious twaddle spouted in "Thought for the Day" and all the other superstitious nonsense they are allowed to broadcast to the nation. Virtually every newspaper has a religious commentator. Every time something even vaguely ethical in nature comes up in the news the media run to the Church for comment.

Why do the media think it's appropriate for a bunch of strange people who dress in black, believe in magic, embezzle money and molest choir boys to comment on anything? Well, Wikipedia isn't showing any of the misplaced respect the religious camp are used to and now they've spat out their dummies, a typically Christian attitude.

Back to top.

Sorry! Been away.

I've been away for a while, hence the lack of entries. I wrote a few on my travels but I've temporarily lost them. As soon as they surface I'll post them up.

Back to top.

Saturday 10th Feb 2007

grace kelly

He looks a bit like Phil Lynott and sounds like the illegitimate love child of Queen and The Beautiful South.

But I'm tempted to hazard that Mika is a musical genius. I've been hearing "that bloody song" (as I've been calling it) for weeks, but I never heard it all or heard it properly. I caught the Mika mini-concert on BBC Interactive last night and loved every track. It's quirky ear candy, fresh, new and thoroughly entertaining. His band is great as well: tight and meticulous. If you've only heard Grace Kelly I'd recommend you try some of his other tracks.

Back to top.

Thursday 8th Feb 2007

police state?

Abu Bakr claims "It's a police state for Muslims."

Doesn't the fact that he has been released suggest the very opposite - it's not a police state. Most Muslim countries do have a police state and detained persons wouldn't have been treated with such justice. Mr Bakr also says "It's not a police state for everybody else because these terror laws are designed specifically for Muslims and that's quite an open fact, so we're the ones who are being locked up, detained and then told to go back to our lives." Well, aren't Muslims the ones who fly airliners in to office blocks and blow up commuters on busses?

Am I missing something? Why don't our excessively polite and scared-to-offend reporters ask these simple questions of Muslims who make these complaints.

Muslims make their bed, they have to lie in it. Perhaps they should get their house in order and make a better bed.

Back to top.

Wednesday 7th Feb 2007

respect for religion

Listening to Radio 4 a few days ago. As usual they annoyed me by wheeling out some religious leader/commentator to preach his views on an item in the news.

Why do they do this? Why are these sadly deluded, mythology-spouting people given any more respect, and so a much louder voice in the media, than any one else? Why don't the BBC wheel out a scientist or a known sceptic?

To add insult to injury, the article he was commenting on touched on the abuse of young people. I'd bet that the percentage of priests and upstanding religious leaders who have abused children is far greater than the percentage of scientists or sceptics who have abused children.

Back to top.

Tuesday 6th Feb 2007

iPod woes

I bought an 80Gb iPod in late January from Comet. It turned out to be faulty (constant disk errors) no amount of resetting, reinstalling or restoring would fix it. Eventually took it back to Comet who claim that because its older the 14 days (yes, days) I have to contact Apple for support.

I opted to pay an inflated price for this iPod (compared with internet prices) and bought it from this high street retailer precisely because I wanted to be able to get quick after sales help if I needed it. I know returning something to Apple can take weeks. But, no - if you pay Comet's inflated price you get nothing better than internet after sales service; after 14 days they wipe their hands of you. Apparently, according to the manager of the store, this is Comet's policy with everything they sell.

After writing to Comet's CEO and demanding a full refund plus £30 for my trouble I'm finally happy. They've given me my £30 and replaced the iPod.

Back to top.

Monday 5th Feb 2007

pray for me?

Yesterday a neighbour told me she prays for me when she is in church!

I'm not sure how to react; I feel vaguely insulted, slightly violated but at the same time I know she means well. On the other hand she knows I don't subscribe to her beliefs so why didn't she just keep it to herself? I wouldn't dream of telling her I fantasise about her, even if it were true. I don't really care whether she prays for me or not: for some reason I just feel I don't want to know.

Back to top.