Science and Facebook

Today I threw out 10 old notepads filled with maths; maths, maths and more maths. What joy. But thinking of the actual disposal, got me thinking about a parallel namely the movie known as 'The Social Network'. If you have seen it you will certainly have your own opinions of it, certainly it has it merits, actually it is rather good in my opinion. What I object to is how they seemingly just gloss over the supposed "hacking" bits of it. They have got it wrong, wrong wrong.

Cracker: This is the common term used to describe a malicious hacker. Crackers get into all kinds of mischief, including breaking or "cracking" copy protection on software programs, breaking into systems and causing harm, changing data, or stealing. Hackers regard crackers as a less educated group of individuals that cannot truly create their own work, and simply steal other people's work to cause mischief, or for personal gain."

Mark Zuckerberg is a CRACKER not a HACKER:

Hacker: This is someone that seeks to understand computer, phone or other systems strictly for the satisfaction of having that knowledge. Hackers wonder how things work, and have an incredible curiosity. Hackers will sometimes do questionable legal things, such as breaking into systems, but they generally will not cause harm once they break in. Contrast a hacker to the term cracker.

It is the same with skinheads and boneheads.

Bonehead: What traditional non-racist skinheads began to call scruffy glue-sniffing sleazeballs who pretended to be skinheads in the late 1970s. Now it specifically refers to neo-Nazi/white power skinhead imposters.

Skinhead: A movement started in Britain in the 60s when the mod scene met the hippy scene. The mod scene split, and the "hard mods", the ones who hated hippies, got harder. With a little influence from Jamacian rudeboys, the skinhead was born out of the hard mod. Most of the music was held over from the mod days, but there were ska and reggae imported from the rude boys.

This is not just about semantics, they haven't even remotely understood the concept of computer programming when they call every single person who 'looks like he knows' something a "hacker" - they do not. Programming is hard, most people cannot do it, HTML is not programming, blogger script is not programming. In fact most things which are programming, strictly speaking, are difficult to understand and most people cannot. What is more a hacker will never call himself a hacker, it is an earned term not something you go around and put on your business card or present yourself with 'Hi I am Joe Bloggs - the hacker' no, no, no and a million times no. That is not how it works. Just to give you an insight into the world of science. Oh and also the people who work at the Apple stores and are rather endearingly called 'geniuses' are not. It is common practise in science and engineering departments to take the mickey out of 'geniuses' - they are seen as a lesser form of people when they have that blue t-shirt on. Quite rightly to.

People, if we cannot even get our appellations correct then what is the point?

Mathematical Manipulation

This is a Sunday, a fairly nice Sunday I might say. That is taken in the light of what could be discussed in this blog rather than what will be. The weather is cold, windy and the leaves are falling to the ground like weights, as if they wanted to reach their final descent and grave quickly, not realising that this is their final journey and that they wont have the privilege again of covering the canopy of some ancient birch for the benefit of the rest of us. But alas I digress.

I like maths, I like maths because I might be so bold as to say that I am relatively good at it when compared to the rest of the populace of my age. Granted, people at my university are even better than me at maths but some are also worse much to the chagrin of their tutors I can imagine. Maths is a difficult subject if one considers its image, it is not what one would call 'blessed' with a sexy image but is rather vexed by the revulsion it involuntarily invokes in so many young compatriots. Those who were not fortunate enough to be blessed by mathematical fortitude have come to know the wrath of this unfortunate handicap which they possess.

It has become en vogue to try to redefine the founding pillars of maths for the benefit of the majority. 'Retake the Arithmetic' the hoi polloi shriek or more familiar yet 'Rein in the Nerds.' A bit insulting if you ask me (who invariably is the subject of their bemusement) but I know it is all in good fun if not with a hint of seriousness steeped in animation. There have been a lot of valiant attempts by Mathematicians and non-Mathematicans (and by science and non-science types) to try to instil a sense of ease in those not predestined to walk the halls of Integrals. Take this for example or why not this. 'Popular science' and 'popular maths' have become part of the colloquial tour de force with which science correspondents try to explain and convey the most abstract of concepts. Good for them they have certainly not chosen an easy task. However one must not forget that people without proper foundations in science will face difficulties understanding it, whilst they might have chosen a difficult field they also wield great power for they often get things hopelessly wrong. And look rather peevish when real scientists have to come in a clean-up their mess. I am going to step on an arrogant note here: we should not have to come in and clean-up their mess, if they do not comprehend a subject they should leave it alone or pass it on to someone who does. That said I will echo Einstein when I propose that science and maths are of little use if people cannot understand them.

Much as I admire Einstein was he correct in that latest of assertions? Most people do not know how or even why their iPhone4 functions as it does but they do not seem to be particularly worse of do they? The same with computers, they are ridiculous difficult machines to understand and the governing maths even more so, yet this is not the main concern for users. Quantum computing is on the rise but only a handful of people in the world (less than say 100,000 and yours truly does not count himself among those) have in-depth knowledge of the fundamental physical interactions which govern the behaviour of quantum functions which acquiesce the building of computers who can 'think' at the speed of light.

It would appear thus that intricate knowledge of the gears and spanners that make today's information society possible, are not necessary in order to take part in said society. Only for a select few is that knowledge necessary in order to further the boundaries of science. Which is why, though I admire their attempts, it seems somewhat futile to even begin to write Natural Science titles which begin with the epithet 'popular' since that is anathema to the confines of science. Science should be open for everyone, of course, but only for those who seek it. We obsess to a degree seldom seen, that everyone must take part in the latest results from CERN, yet only very few people can take any joy out of those numbers. Naturally, tax-funded the whole establishment was, its main benefit to society wont be the results it produces directly as part of its raison d'être, no, but rather the spin-off technology which will be developed to reach that end. That is where the true value to society lies and not in endless terabytes of data it spews out every second it is turned on.

This the principle by which I live; most people are stupid. But, everyone is good at something but by some stroke of nature the majority are not predisposed to natural science. Unfortunately. We can either accept this and press on with more urgent matters or we can, as is the current trend, continue to harbour under the illusion that everyone is equally bright and can reach the same standards. You do not even need a GCSE in maths to function normally and successfully in today's society. Yet politicians insist that virtually everyone needs to go to university - even those who have no desire to do so. As much as I regret to say it, unless you have a penchant for natural sciences you are going to find it difficult and it really is not something you can learn. Inhaling facts is not the same thing as understanding them. Like singing we say as part of 'good-will', that anyone can learn it, but most teachers know that this is simply not true. They tell that to parents so that they shall not think their children inferior to their peers, and quite right too, but the reality is far darker than the unicorn/fantasy-world parents are falsely led into.

Small AGW victories count and Graph design can be misleading

I was greatly surprised, and delighted, this morning when I ripped open a popular-science magazine to which my parents subscribe. They like to stay in the loop when it comes to science but they have gone with the most politically correct and left-leaning (you know the type who proclaim to be 'progressive' but mean that we should all shut the **** up and follow their rules for you see they know what is best for us proles) periodical there is out there. If there is anything sensational going on with AGW - birds are flying into concentrated blocks of CO2 - you can bet this bollocks magazine is on it. They never seem to check any of the most ridiculous claims they relate as "news" and you can be quite sure that they would never, ever, break or even scratch the "consensus" on global warming.

Which leads us to this morning's joyful occasion; there was a letter from a reader saying precisely what I have been thinking about this magazine. How it is so hopelessly entangled in its own dogmatic ways that it really is not any fun to read anymore. Never questioning a topic, taking the opposite view for good or for bad, and always -always- delivering some expert who of course has a government grant to back-up him up on what he or she is saying; naturally, not challenging government policy etcetera. A breath of fresh air this letter was and even more so because it was written by a professor of particle physics at a very respected university. Well, what does a particle physicist know about global warming I hear you say? A damn sight more than Chris Huhne that's for sure (and if you honestly did think that rhetorical query to yourself, even subconsciously, you are bloody stupid - truly). Anyone who is in the loop when it comes to science knows that whatever you do, you do not stick your nose out and go against the flow on AGW. You are seen as a maverick, a raving loony charlatan, who bought his degree online. Or worse yet: did your PhD in something useful. The horror!

This man should be knighted for his bravery.

PS. Here is a very easy trick for you non-scientists if you want an easy way to distinguish proper science (most of the time) from bogus politically motivated hacks. Scientists, the real ones without an agenda (and I am sad to say some with an agenda who have no regard for scientific impartiality and process), use a program called MATLAB (short for Matrix Laboratory) to make their graphs and tables. This program is not that difficult to learn, but most people don't for the simple reason that Excel is 10 times easier to use. Which is why hacks and warmists usually use Excel for their graphs and tables. The difference is very easy to spot; you all recognise an Excel graph, it looks very slick and I do not really need to describe one for you. The one below is of a typical MATLAB graph; quite grubby, not very pleasing to the eye but it does the job and that is the key point. Next time you think someone is talking bollocks and is backing it up with dodgy data: have a look at his graphs and check to see if he knows his shit or is talking shit. I think it noteworthy to add that the now infamous 'Hockey Stick Graph' was made in Excel (most of the versions I have seen at least). Sort of says it all really.

Observe though: this is more of a guideline than a rule.

We have British Space Agency

This is actually quite cool, rather amazingly it is not a complete cock-up by Labour. Standing in stark contrast with the previous post.