Shared posts

27 Jan 21:00

8 of the most-commonly mis-remembered political facts

by noreply@blogger.com (Alun Wyburn-Powell)


1 Lloyd George was born in Manchester. True, he was nicknamed the Welsh Wizard and he represented a seat in Wales, but he was indeed born in Manchester.

2 Before the First World War women’s suffrage groups campaigned against Liberal candidates who were in favour of votes for women. William Wedgwood Benn in 1910 was just one example.

3 William Beveridge was a Liberal MP. True, he wrote his famous report before he became an MP and he was only an MP from 1944 to 1945, but he was indeed a Liberal MP.

4 Over the last century, the decade which saw the greatest proportion of government intentions turn into reality was the 1940s. This included the period of Winston Churchill’s Conservative, Labour and Liberal wartime coalition and Clement Attlee’s first premiership.

5 Margaret Thatcher was prime minister when the Pound joined the Exchange Rate Mechanism (ERM).

6 John Major was the party leader who won the most ever votes for his party. It was in 1992 and the Conservative Party won over 14 million votes – no party before or since has ever won more votes. Major’s own majority in his seat in Huntingdon was over 36,000.

7 At the 1997 election the Liberal Democrats share of the vote fell, but the number of MPs doubled.

8 Ukip has no MPs, but the Green Party and Respect do.
27 Jan 20:47

Another casualty from the Rennard controversy?

by noreply@blogger.com (Mark Smulian)
Quite apart from the impact on both his accusers and Lord Rennard himself, there could be wider casualty from the last week's events.

Just consider both Nick Clegg's bemoaning that party rules constrain him from acting as he would wish to, and media commentators condemning him as weak for being unable to simply throw Rennard out of the party by personal diktat.

The potential casualty is party democracy itself. There will be those who will point to the embarrassments caused and say that they would not have happened if the leader had been able to act 'decisively' unconstrained by the tiresome requirements of a democratic party.

Those ever ready with bleating demands for 'strong leadership', under which the Lib Dem membership would be reduced to a fan club - as are members of the other main parties - will be only too happy to point to these events and argue that they show a 'serious' party in power ought to dispense with its internal democracy.

No-one suggests that this was an outcome sought by the women who have made complaints, or indeed by Lord Rennard, but there is the danger of it being an unintended consequence.

Clegg has pointed out that he led a political party and "not a sect". He would though probably be less than human if he didn't fancy being able to solve party problems by simply issuing instructions.

This crisis may have presented those who would like that outcome with a golden opportunity. Be on guard.
27 Jan 17:28

What the Christ is the Matter with the Jews, Bob?

by LP

“Sir?”

“What is it, Nixon? I’ve got things to do. This place doesn’t run itself.”

“Well, I was wondering…”

“And what are you doing in the Palace of Sin? According to my Palm Pilot, you’re supposed to be having your blood replaced by napalm right now, followed by a full-body blackening at 3PM.”

“I just thought, if I could get a moment of your time.”

“I’ll give you five minutes. Only because you did that Checkers speech. I’ve got that on a perpetual loop down in Bolgia 2, you know.”

“Er, thank you, sir. What I was wondering is, I…well, I’ll be frank, sir. I’d like to know why I’m here.”

“Are you serious?”

“Richard Nixon has never been a joker, Mr. Satan.”

“Don’t call me Mr. Satan. Also, don’t refer to yourself in the third person. You’ll only make things harder on yourself.”

“Really?”

“No, I guess not. Anyway, you’re down here for your lifetime of evil deeds. God singled you out, in fact.”

“He did? But why? I’m a devoted Quaker.”

“That’s probably why. That kid of his hates hypocrites.”

“But…but Carter’s not down here. Neither is Ford. And Ford pardoned me.”

“Ugh, Ford, don’t remind me.  I haven’t seen an extradition battle like that since Ty Cobb. And Carter’s going to Heaven, bet on it. That guy is a complete suckup to God.”

“Well, what about Ike?”

“Are you kidding? Ike golfs with God every Sunday afternoon. They wear the same sweaters.”

“I just don’t understand it. I worked hard. I was thrifty. I abstained from drink and gluttony. I didn’t screw around with broads like that son of a bitch Kennnedy.”

“See, there you go.”

“What?”

“God hates cursing. Those tapes alone would have got you sent down here. There’s no missing 18 1/2 minutes in Heaven.”

“I thought He might think of it as righteous anger. It was directed at all the right people — homos, coloreds, hippies. I find it hard to believe he’d be upset about all those yellow people and their monkey gods.”

“Aren’t you forgetting someone?”

“You don’t mean…”

“Oh, yes, I do.”

“God damn it.”

“He certainly has.”

“I just thought…I mean, look. With Billy Graham around all the time, and you have no idea how much that fat fuck Kissinger can get on your nerves…”

“Oh, don’t I? Look, Nixon. I can’t figure it out either, but God really has a thing about the Jews. There’s plenty of people who figured they were going upstairs, that they’d made all the right moves — and they would have, too, if they weren’t so down on the Jews. Martin Luther…Henry Ford…Hitler…shit, they’d be on Heaven’s board of directors if they weren’t so hung up about the Jews.”

“So that’s it? I get a lifetime of eternal damnation just because I used some bad language and didn’t like the Jews? That’s all it took?”

“Well, there was one other thing. But I don’t think I’ll tell you. It will make your torment all the more exquisite.”

“No, please! Tell me! I must know! I’ll do anything. I’ll become your footman. I’ll lick Kennedy’s wound. I’ll sit next to Jack Anderson at the Maggot Feast.”

“All right. All right. Anything to get you to quit pestering me.”

“What is it? How did I seal my eternal doom?”

“The thing is, Nixon…”

“Yes?”

“God hates Laugh-In.”

“Gah. I knew that was a bad idea. Fucking Haldeman.”

“Live and learn.”

26 Jan 20:40

Roxy Music: Jealous Guy

by Jonathan Calder


On 7 March 1981 Vienna by Ultravox peaked at number 2 in the UK singles chart, kept from the top sport by Joe Dolce's Shaddup You Face.

It is customary to mourn this as the greatest injustice in the history of British pop, but I am not so sure. Vienna verged on the pretentious and I belong to a generation who could never take Midge Ure seriously because be began in Slik - the poor girl's Bay City Rollers.

This is the record that was at number 3 that week: Roxy Music's Jealous Guy was the best tribute to John Lennon, who had been shot in December 1980. Maybe better than Lennon's own songs that did well as a result.

I was in Derwent College bar at the University of York with some fellow Liberal students the night we heard of his death. Everyone who came into the bar thought it was a really good idea to put on Imagine as the first of the three records you got for 10p - or whatever a jukebox cost in those days.

The result was that, all evening, every third record that came on was Imagine. Before very long we were booing it every time it came on.

Justice was done and Jealous Guy made number 1 on 14 March - the version above is a slightly inflated live performance.

I would like to hear what Joe Dolce could do with Vienna though.
26 Jan 14:57

Fidelis et mortem: making sense of Dracula’s family motto

by weavingsandunpickings

I must apologise for neglecting this blog somewhat recently. Most of my effort at the moment is going into my Commemorating Augustus project website, which is busier than ever now that we have reached Augustus’ bimillennial year. In between matters Augustan, though, I’ve recently been having a lot of fun revisiting Hammer’s Dracula (1958).

Since the discovery in 2011 of some lost scenes from this film and the release of a new Blu-Ray / DVD edition complete with those scenes lovingly restored, it has been enjoying quite a renaissance. Late last year, I had the pleasure of seeing it on the big screen as part of Manchester’s GrimmFest 2013, and soon afterwards I bought my own restored copy and got stuck into the DVD extras.

The one I enjoyed most was a half-hour documentary with Christopher Frayling, entitled ‘The Demon Lover’, in which he explains how Hammer introduced full-blown sexuality into the Dracula story for the first time, effectively making it a metaphor for a couple (Mina and Arthur) overcoming the threat of an adulterous relationship (between Mina and Dracula). I’m a big fan of Christopher Frayling, and I think this reading is absolutely spot on. But in the course of pursuing references to the adultery theme through the story, Frayling picked up on the family crest which is visible over the fireplace in Dracula’s castle:

Dracula fidelis et mortem fireplace

Between two sea-creatures and underneath a shield surmounted by a sailing boat, the motto reads ‘Fidelis et mortem’. In case we are any doubt about what it says, the same motto is also visible on the letter which Dracula leaves out for Harker when he arrives at the castle. Here, the ‘F’ on ‘fidelis’ is just out of shot, but there is enough to see that the motto is spelt the same way:

Dracula fidelis et mortem letter

In his documentary, Frayling makes a point of saying that ‘Fidelis et mortem’ means ‘Faithful and dead’. The same translation is also repeated (presumably on the basis of Frayling’s statement) by Marcus Hearn and Jonathan Rigby on the commentary track.

However, they are all wrong.

In fact, the motto is not even good Latin in the first place. That’s no great surprise. Film and TV productions are full of mangled Latin – indeed I’ve written about a similar case in Doctor Who before. But it’s when people start offering up incorrect translations of the mangled Latin, which then in turn get treated as though they are authoritative, that the Classicist in me feels the need to step in and call a halt.

So what do we have here? First, the motto as it stands: ‘Fidelis et mortem’. ‘Fidelis’ does indeed mean ‘faithful’ (an adjective), as Frayling says. But ‘mortem’ is not an adjective – it is a noun, and thus means ‘death’ (not ‘dead’). At best, then, we have ‘Faithful and death’, which is already a bit meaningless.

But ‘mortem’ also has an accusative ending. This should normally mean it is the object of a verb, but there is no verb within this motto, or any very obvious absent verb which we can understand. The wrongness of this can’t really be conveyed very easily in English, since we use word order rather than word endings to show how the parts of a sentence relate to one another. But the best way of getting it across would be to translate the motto as something like ‘And death faithful’. That’s about how much sense the Latin makes.

So someone’s Latin was a bit shaky – probably production designer Bernard Robinson‘s. It’s likely that what he was actually aiming at was something more like ‘Fidelis ad mortem’, which is perfectly good Latin, and means ‘Faithful unto death’. This is the motto of (amongst many others) the NYC Police Department.

But to my mind, that still doesn’t suit the Dracula story, or its main character, very well. After all, Dracula is immortal and undead, so nothing needs to stop with death for him – not even fidelity. And in fact, part of the reason why Frayling mistranslates the motto in the first place is that this is the point he’s making about the Dracula character – that even in death, Dracula is attempting to pursue his own tragically-distorted form of fidelity.

The film begins after all with him in what might well be the vampire equivalent of settled domesticity – he has a(n unnamed) vampire bride, and possibly even wears a wedding ring (though it may just be a signet ring) on the little finger of his left hand. We might surmise that all is not well chez Dracula, since at the first available opportunity the vampire bride begs Jonathan Harker to help her escape, tells him how awful Dracula is, and then bites Harker, very obviously against Dracula’s wishes. But it’s reasonable to assume that at least at one time, Dracula liked having her around. Certainly once she has gone his entire motivation for the rest of the film is the attempt to replace her – first with Lucy, and then, when that is scotched by Van Helsing, with Mina.

So that’s why amending the motto to ‘Fidelis ad mortem’ doesn’t work for me. Dracula is not merely ‘faithful unto death’. In his own way he is ‘faithful and dead’, just as Frayling says. But that still isn’t what the Latin over his fireplace says.

Thinking this over, I came up with another solution. It’s obvious that there’s an error here, but what if it isn’t the substitution of an ‘et’ for an ‘ad’? What if instead we knock the final ‘m’ off ‘mortem’ to get ‘Fidelis et morte’? Once we’ve done that, it puts ‘morte’ in the ablative case, and this allows it to mean ‘in death’. Meanwhile, the Latin word ‘et’ is actually quite flexible. It doesn’t just have to mean ‘and’, but can equally cover ‘also’ or ‘even’. So we can translate ‘Fidelis et morte’ as either ‘Faithful also in death’ or ‘Faithful even in death’ (both are essentially the same).

That works for me as a Classicist, and I’m ready to guess it would work for Frayling as a film critic, too. Maybe it’s even what Bernard Robinson actually intended?

This is as far as I got with the motto under my own steam, anyway. But when I asked a few friends on Facebook about it, the brilliant Peter Olive (who is available for Latin tutoring) came up with an even better solution. Remember how I said that the ‘mortem’ in ‘Fidelis et mortem’ has no good reason for being in the accusative case, since this is normally used to mark out the object of a verb? Well, Peter pointed out that there is another rather specialist use of the accusative known as the accusative of respect (no, really!), which allows a word to be translated as meaning ‘with respect to’.

If we apply this to ‘Fidelis et mortem’, we can now translate it as ‘Faithful even with respect to death’. Suddenly, everything falls into place! It has the merit of preserving the motto as we actually see it on screen, which is something I’m definitely in favour of. Otherwise, we have to assume that Dracula isn’t very good at Latin, which is at odds with what we know about his historical counterpart. It also suits the character of the Hammer Dracula perfectly, preserving Frayling’s idea of the lonely immortal who is really just after a vampire bride to call his own – doggedly faithful to the pursuit even in death.

In the end, Frayling is still wrong to translate ‘Fidelis et mortem’ as ‘Faithful and dead’; and I also very much doubt that Bernard Robinson knew about the accusative of respect when he designed the props and sets for the film. But by applying the collective talents of a few Classicists, it’s turned out that we can smooth over the gap, and get the Latin as it appears on the screen to make sense grammatically, as well as to work in service of the story. Now that is satisfying indeed.

26 Jan 14:37

Every Award-Winning Book Sucks (For Someone)

by John Scalzi

As part of my occasional and hopefully instructive series of entries in which I try to make the point to writers that negative reviews are part of the territory and ultimately not something to get too worked up about or to let scar one’s psyche, I would like to present you excerpts of one star Amazon reviews of every single Hugo-winning novel of the last ten years (of which there are eleven, due to a tie in 2010). I would note that while I quote only one for each novel, in every case, there was more than one to choose from.

In chronological order:

2004: Paladin of Souls, Lois McMaster Bujold:

I hate it when I see an awesome author seem to get worse as they move on and write other series. I pushed through the first one, and did finish this one, but had to complain about the writing and slowness at least once per reading session.

2005: Jonathan Strange and Mr. Norrell, Susannah Clarke:

I just stopped reading this book on page 721. That’s right I stopped with only about 60 pages to go, after having read every footnote and every word up to that point. Why? I just couldn’t spend another hour of my life on this book.

2006: Spin, Robert Charles Wilson:

This book was boring and without a doubt a great waste of time. I stuck with this because I felt that just around the corner, or next page, a something of consequence would happen. No, nothing happened, page after page after page of nothing.

2007: Rainbow’s End, Vernor Vinge:

It’s just one of the most bland, uninteresting books I’ve read in a long time. The future world state is mildly interesting, but it’s nothing compared to the future worlds that Vinge has created in his other novels. And the character development and storyline is just atrociously uninteresting.

2008: The Yiddish Policemen’s Union, Michael Chabon:

I found the book to be completely nonsensical, overbearing and tedious. I nearly put this book down several times, but felt compelled and determined to finish. In the end, I didn’t think it was worth the time; it was an extreme disappointment.

2009: The Graveyard Book, Neil Gaiman:

I am amazed that this book has won awards — I wonder about the judges who voted for this completely unsuitable book. The book revolves around graveyards, murder, ghosts and a child called Nobody. Being called nobody certainly would not improve self esteem. This is a horrible, highly negative book.

2010: (tie) The Windup Girl, Paolo Bacigalupi:

I can’t recommend this book. It was one of the worst I have ever read. The only character in this book that I cared the least bit about was Mai and she wasn’t even in it very much at all. I felt sorry for her but I really could have cared less if the rest of them died.

2010: (tie) The City and The City, China Mieville:

I thought this book would be amazing, instead it was tedious and boring. What was an interesting murder mystery story was wrapped up in a boring, vague, repetitive story. I understood, the cities were geographically together but politically separate. Interesting in theory, but would never work in practice. But I didn’t need to be reminded of it every 5 sentences.

2011: Blackout/All Clear, Connie Willis:

This is very little reward for a long and tedious read. The three main characters are all very like, tiresomely guilt-ridden and apparently unable to think new thoughts very quickly, even when their lives depend on it. I would not drop this lot off in a mall parking lot far from home and expect them to live. 

2012: Among Others, Jo Walton:

Most of the book is filled with angsty recollections by a teenager caught in a (mildly) unpleasant situation, and pages and pages and *pages* of tepid one-line reviews of every golden-age sci fi and fantasy writer. I don’t know why I read this book to the end–it kept promising something interesting, but never delivered. 

2013: Redshirts, John Scalzi:

This is an onanistic shallow and very disappointing book. Little or no character development. What should have been an interesting short story based on a somewhat interesting conceit has been puffed out to novel length and suffers hugely from the increased exposure. Don’t waste your time or money… The only interesting element was the coda about writer’s block which, I fear, seems to be very close to home for him as reflected in recent work.

And should you be of the opinion that all this means is that the quality of Hugo winning books has declined in the last decade, I’d note that just about every Hugo winner has its share of one star reviews, including Starship Troopers (“a VERY dry read with nothing to grab your attention”), Dune (“Prose that would make a Dungeons and Dragons novel blush”), The Left Hand of Darkness (“I cannot avoid the feeling of its uselessness”), Neuromancer (“tedious and pretentious writing, unnecessary to illustrate intellectual concepts.”), Ender’s Game (“Most likely the worst book I’ve ever read”) and The Diamond Age (“it drags on and on and on with little concern for plot or characterization”). We could likewise do this for every Nebula, Locus and Clarke winner, as well as every Booker, Pulitzer and National Book Award winner. Or, to be honest, just about any book nominated or winning any award, from any time, anywhere.

The point is: there has yet to be a book — no matter how well-regarded or awarded — that does not suck for someone. No matter what is nominated for an award or wins, there will always be someone aghast at its presence on the list or its author at the lectern. And as this is the case for the award winners — all the award winners, every one of them — you probably shouldn’t feel too bad when inevitably your book starts racking up negative notes.

Likewise, should your work be nominated for an award, and then you see someone huffing and puffing about how your presence on the ballot is bizarre/outraging/proof of the decline of humanity, you can recognize that this makes you just like every single other person who has been nominated for or won an award, ever, in the history of the whole world. And that’s a perversely comforting thought.


26 Jan 14:36

My fan-dabi-dozi column for the Leicester Mercury

by Jonathan Calder

On 9 January I had the following column published in the Leicester Mercury.

Run-of-the-mill stuff, you will say, but it appeared on the same spread as The Krankies.

Multi-party politics here for the long haul

I’ve got some bad news for people who don’t like the Coalition: it’s going to continue throughout 2014. And when I say “people who don’t like the Coalition,” I am thinking chiefly of Conservative activists and backbench MPs.

Because ever since their party failed to win the 2010 general election those backbenchers and activists have taken out their anger, not on David Cameron, but on the Liberal Democrats. If it weren’t for Nick Clegg, they tell us, we could do all sorts of wonderful things.

Which is odd, because the Coalition has chalked up some solid achievements. Tax cuts for low-paid workers; scrapping Labour’s plans for compulsory national identity cards; maintaining the overseas aid budget; providing more funding to schools to help children from poor families.

It’s even odder when you look at what those backbenchers and activists think a Conservative government would do if it weren’t reined in by the Liberal Democrats. Cuts in inheritance tax for millionaires; allowing employers to fire people at will; a database to record everyone’s emails and text messages; abolishing Natural England, the public body that conserves our natural environment.

That does not sound like a programme to enthuse anyone beyond the Conservative Party. So one effect of the Coalition may have been to make David Cameron more popular than he would have been if he were leading a one-party government.

But let’s leave the party politics aside and look at the deeper picture. Back in 1951 the Conservatives and Labour between them received 96.8 per cent of the votes cast. By the time of the last general election that figure had fallen to 65.1 per cent.

The Liberal revival, the rise of the Nationalist parties in Scotland and Wales, and the arrival of the Greens and UKIP mean that multi-party politics is here to stay. And that, despite the near lottery of our current electoral system, means that coalitions are much more likely in future.

And why assume that is a bad thing? Ask the public what they think of politics and they say they hate petty squabbling and want to see people from different parties working together. That is what coalitions give you.

Maybe they make radical change less likely, but it’s not as if the major parties are far apart these days. I would like to see this government doing more to help the poor, but I remember that Labour’s rising star Rachel Reeves has promised to be tougher on benefits than the Coalition.

So not only will the Coalition last throughout 2014: coalition governments may well be here to stay.
24 Jan 17:02

Income disparity in higher ed

by Michael Leddy
Daughter Number Three has a thoughtful post on income disparity: How Much Is Too Much? Her recommendation: 30:1. In other words, the highest-paid employee in a company should earn no more than thirty times what the lowest-paid employee earns. Peter Drucker’s recommended ratio was lower still: 20:1.

I thought it would be instructive to see how these ratios might work in a college setting. The highest-paid employee at some schools is of course not the president but the football coach. In December 2013, Forbes named the University of Alabama’s Nick Saban as the highest-paid college coach in the country, earning $5.4 million this season. A contract extension is about to bring him more than $7 million per season. Let’s call it an even $7 million.

With a 30:1 ratio, the lowest-paid employee at the University of Alabama would earn a yearly income of $233,333. With a 20:1 ratio, $350,000. Given a forty-hour week, a 20:1 ratio translates to an hourly wage of $168. Plausible? No. But neither, to my mind, is the coach’s salary.

The Adjunct Project reports adjuncts at Alabama earning $2,500 to $5,000 per course. If the lowest-paid full-time adjunct at Alabama earns $20,000 a year, the high-to-low ratio is 350:1. (And service workers likely earn less.) Something is rotten — and not just in Tuscaloosa.

[I became interested in Peter Drucker’s work after reading his Managing Oneself. There’s an excerpt in this post. The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that in 2011, Robert J. Zimmer of the University of Chicago was the highest-paid college president. Total compensation: $3,358,723.]

You’re reading a post from Michael Leddy’s blog Orange Crate Art. Your reader may not display this post as its writer intended.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License.
24 Jan 10:24

Retiring falsifiability? A storm in Russell’s teacup

by Scott

My good friend Sean Carroll took a lot of flak recently for answering this year’s Edge question, “What scientific idea is ready for retirement?,” with “Falsifiability”, and for using string theory and the multiverse as examples of why science needs to break out of its narrow Popperian cage.  For more, see this blog post of Sean’s, where one commenter after another piles on the beleaguered dude for his abandonment of science and reason themselves.

My take, for whatever it’s worth, is that Sean and his critics are both right.

Sean is right that “falsifiability” is a crude slogan that fails to capture what science really aims at.  As a doofus example, the theory that zebras exist is presumably both “true” and “scientific,” but it’s not “falsifiable”: if zebras didn’t exist, there would be no experiment that proved their nonexistence.  (And that’s to say nothing of empirical claims involving multiple nested quantifiers: e.g., “for every physical device that tries to solve the Traveling Salesman Problem in polynomial time, there exists an input on which the device fails.”)  Less doofusly, a huge fraction of all scientific progress really consists of mathematical or computational derivations from previously-accepted theories—and, as such, has no “falsifiable content” apart from the theories themselves.  So, do workings-out of mathematical consequences count as “science”?  In practice, the Nobel committee says sure they do, but only if the final results of the derivations are “directly” confirmed by experiment.  Far better, it seems to me, to say that science is a search for explanations that do essential and nontrivial work, within the network of abstract ideas whose ultimate purpose to account for our observations.  (On this particular question, I endorse everything David Deutsch has to say in The Beginning of Infinity, which you should read if you haven’t.)

On the other side, I think Sean’s critics are right that falsifiability shouldn’t be “retired.”  Instead, falsifiability’s portfolio should be expanded, with full-time assistants (like explanatory power) hired to lighten falsifiability’s load.

I also, to be honest, don’t see that modern philosophy of science has advanced much beyond Popper in its understanding of these issues.  Last year, I did something weird and impulsive: I read Karl Popper.  Given all the smack people talk about him these days, I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of nuance, reasonableness, and just general getting-it that I found.  Indeed, I found a lot more of those things in Popper than I found in his latter-day overthrowers Kuhn and Feyerabend.  For Popper (if not for some of his later admirers), falsifiability was not a crude bludgeon.  Rather, it was the centerpiece of a richly-articulated worldview holding that millennia of human philosophical reflection had gotten it backwards: the question isn’t how to arrive at the Truth, but rather how to eliminate error.  Which sounds kind of obvious, until I meet yet another person who rails to me about how empirical positivism can’t provide its own ultimate justification, and should therefore be replaced by the person’s favorite brand of cringe-inducing ugh.

Oh, I also think Sean might have made a tactical error in choosing string theory and the multiverse as his examples for why falsifiability needs to be retired.  For it seems overwhelmingly likely to me that the following two propositions are both true:

1. Falsifiability is too crude of a concept to describe how science works.
2. In the specific cases of string theory and the multiverse, a dearth of novel falsifiable predictions really is a big problem.

As usual, the best bet is to use explanatory power as our criterion—in which case, I’d say string theory emerges as a complex and evolving story.  On one end, there are insights like holography and AdS/CFT, which seem clearly to do explanatory work, and which I’d guess will stand as permanent contributions to human knowledge, even if the whole foundations on which they currently rest get superseded by something else.  On the other end, there’s the idea, championed by a minority of string theorists and widely repeated in the press, that the anthropic principle applied to different patches of multiverse can be invoked as a sort of get-out-of-jail-free card, to rescue a favored theory from earlier hopes of successful empirical predictions that then failed to pan out.  I wouldn’t know how to answer a layperson who asked why that wasn’t exactly the sort of thing Sir Karl was worried about, and for good reason.

Finally, not that Edge asked me, but I’d say the whole notions of “determinism” and “indeterminism” in physics are past ready for retirement.  I can’t think of any work they do, that isn’t better done by predictability and unpredictability.

24 Jan 10:17

The Space Museum

by Iain Coleman

You dropped a glass, and it came together again in your hands?

If you drop your glass of water and it shatters all over the floor, you’ll be a bit annoyed. But f it then spontaneously reassembles and jumps back up into your hand, you won’t be relieved to have your drink back. You’ll be thoroughly freaked out. Things like that just don’t happen.

This is why it’s usually easy to tell if a video recording is being played forwards or backwards. Smashed glasses reassembling, clouds of smoke rushing into narrow chimneys, pulped meat and bread emerging from mouths and assembling into pristine burgers – all of these tell us instantly that the video is being rewound. And if we were to see them in real life, we would know that time was running in reverse.

But if you were to look at a video recording made through a sufficiently powerful microscope, one that could see the basic interactions of particles that make up all these events, there would be no way to tell which was the forward playback and which was the reverse. Whether atom A knocks into atom B or vice versa, whether an atom loses energy by emitting a photon, or gains energy by absorbing one, all these processes are equally possible. The fundamental laws of physics – quantum field theory, general relativity – work equally well if time is reversed.

In theory, then, there is no reason why your dropped glass shouldn’t repair itself. All that needs to happen is that all the air molecules displaced by the broken pieces of glass should flow back and strike the fragments, giving just enough force to move them back the way they came, and similarly for all the drops of water, then for the glass molecules at the fractures to all move at the same time so as to repair the damage, enabling the glass to hold the water that is flowing back into it, and finally for the air molecules moved out of the way as the glass fell to move back and lift the glass back up into your hand. Cheers.

None of this would violate the microscopic laws of physics. So why doesn’t it happen? Why do we see such a difference between time going forward and backward?

Well, there is one set of physical laws that make a distinction between past and future. These are the laws of thermodynamics. In particular, the second law of thermodynamics states that, in an isolated system, entropy – a property related to energy and temperature – can increase or remain unchanged, but can never decrease. The significance of this is that entropy is a measure of the useful work that a system can do. The lower the entropy, the more capacity there is for the system to do work. As entropy increases, the system is less and less able to do anything.

For example, imagine you have an insulated box at -20 C – well below freezing point. You can use this to make ice cubes. Just fill an ice cube tray with water, pop it in the box, and wait for the water to freeze. Let’s assume this box is perfectly insulated, so heat doesn’t leak in through the walls, and you are able to open and close the door quickly enough that the inside doesn’t heat up while you’re doing it. Even so, this box is not going to be able to make ice cubes forever. Every tray of water you put in transfers some heat to the inside of the box, so every time you take a tray of ice cubes out the inside of the box will be slightly hotter. If you have a thermometer measuring the interior temperature, you will be able to see the temperature rising: -49, -48, -47… Even if you haven’t bothered with that, you will notice that each tray of water takes longer to freeze than the last one, as the temperature difference between the box and the water gets smaller.

Eventually, if you have a hell of a lot of gin and tonics to make and thus a massive demand for ice, you will notice that the water stops freezing at all, as the inside of the box has finally got above freezing point. Your box is now useless, and your gin and tonics will be sadly lacking. If you still have all the ice cubes around, you could try to cool the box back down by stuffing them back inside it, but at best you’ll manage to melt all your ice, get the box back to -20 C and be no better off than you were before you started. In fact, you probably won’t even be able to do this much. The ice will have warmed up and melted a bit while it was sitting around outside, and so some of your cooling power has been lost forever.

This is the remorseless march of entropy. As time goes on, temperature differences are smoothed out and thermal systems can do less and less work. Indeed, one of the many versions of the second law simply states that heat flows from higher temperatures to lower temperatures, but never the other way around.

At this point, some of you may be saying “But I have a box like that in my kitchen, and it provides me with ice for my G&Ts whenever I want!” Yes, but if you stick your hand round the back of it you will notice it’s warm on the outside. That’s because your freezer box is attached to an electric heat pump, and the entropy it generates by emitting heat into your kitchen allows it to maintain your ability to make ice.

The laws of thermodynamics were first codified during the industrial revolution in order to describe large-scale phenomena like hot gases pushing pistons – a vital application of science to emerging technology. As scientists began to realise that matter was made up of microscopic particles – atoms – the question arose of how the behaviour of these particles gave rise to the laws that govern the visible world. Eventually it would become clear that the laws of thermodynamics are about much more than steam engines and freezers: they are fundamental to the workings of the Universe, the nature of life, and the march of time itself.

The key to all this is a branch of physics called statistical mechanics. The idea behind this is that it is humanly impossible to calculate all the movements and collisions of the atoms even in something so simple as a box full of gas – and also pointless, as we can’t measure all these motions anyway. But by figuring out the average behaviour of the atoms, we can calculate quantities we can measure, such as pressure and temperature, and figure out how they change.

The second law of thermodynamics flows very naturally from this sort of calculation. Take a simple system, like the box of gas from the previous paragraph. As the atoms of gas move around inside the box, they randomly move through all the possible configurations of the system. These possible configurations could have all the atoms evenly distributed, or all of them concentrated into one corner, or all of them at the top of the box and none at the bottom, or whatever. They key point is that there are lots and lots of ways the gas can be evenly distributed, and relatively few ways it can be arranged in just one part of the box. So if the gas is already evenly distributed, it is overwhelmingly likely to stay that way, and if it is put into one of these special configurations it will quickly diffuse out and become evenly distributed once more.

It turns out that this is exactly equivalent to the second law of thermodynamics. The gas all in one corner is a low-entropy state, and the evenly distributed gas is a high-entropy state. The low-entropy system will spontaneously transform into the high-entropy system, while the high-entropy system will stay as it is.

But it also shows how the second law matters for any kind of physical system. A highly ordered system -say, a glass full of water – will readily become a less ordered system – say, a load of broken glass in a puddle – but not the other way around. There are many more ways for glass and water to be arranged in a mess on the floor than there are for them to be arranged as a container full of refreshing beverage.

The second law is also essential for life. As far as thermodynamics is concerned, life ingests low-entropy substances (high-frequency light, plants, animals), uses them to build up low-entropy structures (leaves, muscles, memories) and excretes high-entropy waste products (low-frequency light, poo, more poo). Ultimately, all life on Earth depends on the fact that the entropy of radiation is inversely proportional to its temperature. The Earth absorbs light from the Sun that has a temperature of 5500 C, and emits radiation at a temperature of about 20 C. The entropy difference is what powers all life on this planet.

So the arrow of time points from low entropy to high entropy. This implies that the Universe must have begun in a low-entropy state, from which it is gradually emerging as entropy rises. Is this true?

The further we look out into the Universe, the further back in time we are looking. Light from a galaxy a million light years away has taken a million years to reach us, which means we are seeing the galaxy now as it was a million years ago. So if it is really true that the thermodynamic arrow of time points in the direction of increasing entropy, then surely the further back we look into space, the lower the entropy should be.

But that’s not what we see at all. The oldest and most distant radiation we can detect is the cosmic microwave background radiation, or CMBR. Just after the Big Bang, all the matter in the Universe was in the form of a hot plasma, a gas made up of subatomic particles because it is too hot for atoms to survive. These days, space is cold and dark, with rock, gas and dust orbiting around the scattered stars and galaxies. This is because, as the Universe expanded, it cooled, and when the temperature had dropped enough the plasma formed into atoms of hydrogen, helium and other light elements. The time when this happened is called the recombination time, and it was about four hundred thousand years after the Big Bang – around thirteen billion years ago.

Image

The cosmic microwave background radiation, as mapped by the COBE spacecraft

The CMBR is the light that was emitted by the hot plasma at the recombination time. It is the oldest light we can ever see. Looking back at the CMBR is like looking at the Sun – we can see the light given off at the surface, but nothing within it. Unlike the Sun’s light, the CMBR is primarily in the microwave part of the spectrum. It was visible light when it was emitted, but the expansion of the Universe in the intervening thirteen billion years has stretched out the light waves, shifting them to higher and higher wavelengths until now they are only detectable by very sensitive radio telescopes.

This radiation was first detected in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson – quite by accident, as an annoying hiss in their radio detection equipment – and was swiftly recognised as confirmation of the then-controversial Big Bang theory of cosmology. Perhaps an even more important and profound observation, however, was in 1992, when the COBE spacecraft mapped the structure of the entire CMBR, showing us not only a picture of the entire Universe in its primordial state, but also the tiny fluctuations in the plasma that would eventually grow into stars and galaxies, planets and people.

And it’s those tiny fluctuations that are the problem, as far as the thermodynamic arrow of time is concerned. They are a problem precisely because they are so tiny. The COBE observations showed that, thirteen billion years ago, the Universe was in a state of complete thermal equilibrium to within one part in one hundred thousand. This means the entire cosmos was at the same temperature, around 3000 degrees, with only minute variations.

The thing is, thermal equilibrium like this is a high-entropy state. The highest, in fact. All thermodynamic systems will tend towards thermal equilibrium, just as a ball on a hill tends towards rolling downwards. And when the system reaches thermal equilibrium, like the ball reaching the bottom of the hill, it stops.

So there’s a paradox. For time to work the way it does, the Universe must have started in a low-entropy state. But from the CMBR it looks like entropy in the early Universe was about as high as it can be. Does this mean all our ideas about time are wrong?

Not quite. We haven’t taken into account the fact that the Universe is expanding. This prevents the contents of the Universe from remaining in global thermal equilibrium, as the volume they occupy is increasing too quickly for them to be able to thermodynamically adjust. For an example of how this can work, consider a Universe consisting only of radiation and dust – a commonly-used model for the real Universe after the recombination time, when the CMBR was emitted. As the  Universe expands, it cools. But these two components of the Universe cool at different rates. Matter cools more quickly than radiation. This creates a temperature difference, pulling the entire Universe out of thermal equilibrium. In other words, as the Universe expands, its entropy decreases.

So Vicki’s glass smashes because the Universe is expanding. Or to be a little more precise, a smashable object like Vicki’s glass only exists because the Universe is expanding. And the same goes for our experience of time, our laying down of memories, the measurable difference between the past and the future. All of these phenomena, however mundane, ultimately depend upon the structure of the Universe itself.

But what happens when all the glasses have smashed, when all the stars have burnt out, when entropy finally wins as the Second Law assures us it must? Will time come to an end?

It depends what you mean by time. However much the Universe expands, however old it gets, it will always be a four-dimensional structure with time as one of its coordinates. However, at some point in the far distant future, the subjective experience of time will indeed cease.

The scenario is this. Eventually all the stars will have collapsed into black holes, and these black holes will have absorbed all the other matter in the Universe. But that is not the end. Black holes eventually evaporate, shrinking as they give off radiation until they vanish entirely. So eventually there will be nothing left in the Universe except photons, particles of light. Now, according to the Special Theory of Relativity, for any particle moving at the speed of light every event is simultaneous. To a photon, there is no such thing as time. So when there is nothing left but photons, there will be nothing in the Universe that can experience time, nothing that can be aware of one event happening before or after another. Time will have come to an end.

And the Universe will carry on expanding. Forever.

23 Jan 21:44

The worst thing about Mike Hancock

by Jonathan Calder
A year ago I quoted Mike Hancock's immortal words: ""Why this obsession with political prisoners in Azerbaijan?"

A post by Daniel Hamilton on Trending Central shows that Hancock's attitude to human rights in Eastern Europe is far, far worse than that:
Through thick and thin, he has been an outspoken supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin. The former Hungarian MP Mátyás Eörsi who had the indignity of sitting beside Hancock in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe said, “he is the most pro-Russian MP from among all of the countries of western Europe. When it came to debates on Putin [and] freedom of the media… Michael always defended Russia… According to him, Russia really is a fully-fledged democracy”. The travails of his former researcher-come-lover Ekaterina Zatuliveter, which involved allegations of involvement in Russian espionage at the very heart of Westminster, are well known. 
During the 2008 Russian invasion of Georgia, which saw tanks move within miles of the country’s capital city Tbilisi, Hancock was an outspoken supporter of the Kremlin. As bombs rained down on Georgia, Hancock rather astonishingly delivered a speech thanking the Russian government for preventing the “genocide of the peaceful South Ossetia population”, while simultaneously ignoring the charred Georgian villages following Russian air strikes. Following the conflict, he wrote an article endorsing the de facto independence of South Ossetia and calling for the breakaway region’s “boundaries and borders to be respected”, despite the displacement of more than 30,000 ethnic Georgians from the region.
And so on and on, crowned with a reference by Hancock to "the so-called Armenian genocide".

All of which makes we wish I had done more than poke fun from the sidelines. I should have done more research and publicised Hancock's views long before now.
23 Jan 14:19

Lord Bonkers' Diary: Slaves freed from political collective

by Jonathan Calder
And so our week with Rutland's most celebrated fictional peer draws to a close.

Sunday

The wireless news tells me that a number of slaves have escaped after living for 30 years in a collective they joined “through a shared political ideology”. If this turns out to be the final issue of Liberator – those envelopes take a lot of stuffing, you know – I  should like to thank you for reading me over the past century.

Lord Bonkers was Liberal MP for Rutland South-West 1906-10.

Previously in Lord Bonkers' Diary
23 Jan 14:19

A guide to Liberal scandals

by Jonathan Calder
The last time the Liberal Democrats were consumed by scandal was during the leadership election that followed Charles Kennedy's defenestration.

At the time, as a service to the readers of Liberal Democrat News, I devoted a House Points column to a guide to Liberal scandals of the past:
Take Sir Charles Dilke, once the great hope of the Radicals and a possible successor to Gladstone. In 1885 Dilke was cited in a divorce case. He protested his innocence, but when he produced his diary in court it had holes cut in many of the pages. He claimed this was his usual practice after completing an engagement. It did not save his career. 
Then there is Horatio Bottomley, financier and publisher – the Edwardian Robert Maxwell. This Liberal MP served five years for his swindles. Found working on mailbags by a visitor, he was asked, “Sewing, Bottomley?” “No, reaping,” he famously replied. 
A more exotic figure is Trebitsch Lincoln. Parris sums him up: “Fraudster, spy, Anglican curate, German revolutionary, journalist, secret agent, international outlaw, Chinese cult leader and – in 1910 – Liberal MP for Darlington.” 
Passing rapidly over Loulou Harcourt, who had amassed Europe’s largest collection of child pornography by the time of his suicide in 1922, we come to Mr Gladstone himself.
You can read the whole column on this blog.
23 Jan 14:15

How Fandom Works: A Non-Toon

1.  JERRY FAN:  I love pies

2.  JACKY FAN:  I also love pies

3.  (both eat pies with little enthusiasm)

4.  JERRY FAN:  This pie would make a good cake

***

1.  JERRY FAN:  Did you hear Bill’s Bakery fired Baker Bob

2.  JACKY FAN:  But Baker Bob baked all their best pies

3.  JERRY & JACKY FAN:  We are outraged

4.  JERRY FAN:  I wonder what the new pies from Bill’s Bakery will be like

***

1.  JERRY FAN:  I hate this new pie

2.  JACKY FAN:  Me too, this pie is dry crumbly and tasteless

3.  JANEY FAN:  Then why do you guys keep buying the pies

4.  JERRY FAN:  If we don’t buy them they might stop making them

***

1.  JERRY FAN:  Your latest cake was terrible

2.  JACKY FAN:  Yeah there was no excuse for that cake

3.  BAKERY BILL:  We’re making another one of those cakes

4.  JERRY FAN:  Awesome, so excited

***

1.  JERRY FAN:  There should be more women who are into baking pies

2.  JACKY FAN:  Yeah, why don’t a lot of chicks come to our bake-offs

3.  JANEY FAN:  Actually I have some thoughts on that

4.  JERRY FAN:  Shut up bitch

***

1.  JERRY FAN:  Your cupcakes suck dude

2.  JACKY FAN:  Yeah your cupcakes are a disgrace to the entire concept of cupcakes

3.  BAKERY BILL:  Here is a coupon for 20% off more cupcakes

4:  JERRY & JACKY FAN:  Score

***

1.  JERRY FAN:  Remember that fig bar, it was terrible

2.  JACKY FAN:  Probably the worst thing that has ever happened was that bar

3.  JERRY FAN:  On the other hand it was great

4.  JACKY FAN:  Probably the greatest thing I have ever eaten

***

1.  JERRY FAN:  What is that you are eating, is it a pie

2.  JANEY FAN:  No it is a sandwich

3.  JERRY FAN:  You know what would make that great

4.  JERRY FAN:  If it was a pie

***

1.  BAKER BOB:  Hey I really appreciate you guys supporting my work

2.  JERRY FAN:  No problem man you are one of the all time greats

3.  BAKER BOB:  Can you believe Bill’s Bakery is making crappy new pies using my recipe and selling them with my name on them

4:  JERRY FAN:  Uh we have to go now

***

1.  JANEY FAN:  What are you eating

2.  JERRY FAN:  A turd with a cherry on it

3.  JANEY FAN:  Gross, you’re eating a turd

4.  JERRY FAN:  But it has a cherry on it

Mirrored from LEONARD PIERCE DOT COM.

23 Jan 12:24

Tales of the Great Detectives

by Philip
Good day to you all. I'm pleased to say that I'm very close to submitting the manuscript for Tales of the Great Detectives, the third City of the Saved anthology. Here's the draft blurb: The Afterlives of Sherlock Holmes The City of the Saved houses every human being who ever lived. Inevitably, its immortal Citizens entertain themselves by recreating those who never did. One fiction
22 Jan 13:54

The Most Beautiful Fraud: 12 Years A Slave

Slavery, it has been properly observed, is America’s original sin.  It is our first and foremost crime, the most adjacent cause of our civil war, and the source of the racial poison that continues to choke us today.  It is, if this can be said in a way that does not invite outrage and hyperbole, our Holocaust:  a mobile disaster that wreaks its havoc and taints the very souls of those it touched even now, a hundred and fifty years after it officially came to an end.   But in that comparison lies one of the most thorny problems with assessing 12 Years a Slave, both as an aesthetic object and as an attempt to portray the degrading reality of slavery.  In both form and function, it highly resembles what we have come to think of as “Holocaust movies” — which, for dismaying reasons, has come to mean not just a movie about the Holocaust, but a very specifically formulaic kind of movie that is, because of the very sanctity of its subject, guaranteed critic chow and Oscar bait.

It’s a problem that’s difficult to get around, because of its inherently contradictory nature:  simply by depicting the situation as it really was, such films can seem terribly manipulative.  This tendency can be minimized or exacerbated by the talent behind and in front of the camera, either consciously or unconsciously, but it is always present, and 12 Years A Slave is no exception.  Hans Zimmer’s score is not quite as oppressive has we might expect, but there are moments when it is absolutely unnecessary and overwrought, wringing emotional notes from the audience that ought to have been given up naturally; and, despite the fact that the film strives to keep the focus on the perspective of the slave and not the master, the presence of a Great White Savior is not avoided.   Brad Pitt’s appearance late in the film as the instrument of Solomon Northup’s deliverance was probably inevitable (and likely is what got the film made, given his position as head of the company that produced it), but it still smacks of a sop to middle-class white sensibilities.  Finally, the movie’s ending is perhaps the thorniest contradiction of all:  it’s flagrant emotional manipulation of the sort that justifies a bourgeois audience’s patience with the trials that have come before it, their payoff for being implicated in all that unpleasantness.  But it is also true and real; who can imagine himself reacting any other way under those circumstances?  We have seen these situations depicted in the same way so many times in service of falseness that we almost automatically abreact when we see it done in the service of truth.

And truth is a big part of the appeal of 12 Years A Slave.  The story of a free-born black American who is sold over to southern slavers, its narrative is compelling and damning at the same time:  it provides us with a rare outsider’s perspective on life as a slave, and it gives us that happy ending while still reminding us that such relief never came for millions of others.  And, most importantly, it is true — at least, most of it is, in the opinion of scholars who have looked into the matter.  This is important, because the historical truth of Solomon Northup’s story is what provides the more important factors of its emotional and political truth a platform upon which to stand.  But, again, this truth sometimes gets in its own way, for sometimes the truth is so much like an exaggerated fiction that we see it and we still don’t believe it.  In the early goings of the film, Solomon is sold into the service of Master Ford (Benedict Cumberbatch), who seems a decent enough man under the circumstance — although it falls to another slave to remind Solomon what a grotesquerie that “under the circumstance” truly is.  But because of his own pride and sense of self, he cannot resist fighting a vicious foreman (Paul Dano), thus signing his own death warrant; the only way to save him, Cumberbatch reasons, is to sell him to another master, the brutal and abusive Michael Fassbender.  The earlier scenes are, to me, much more compelling — not because they excuse Cumberbatch, but because they lull us into sympathy with him, because they put us in the pace of the slave mind that truly believes he’s a good man when he grants a token of little worth for a service of great cost, because they show how everyone involved in slavery is destroyed because of it, irrespective of intention.  When Fassbender appears, his nearly cartoonish evil — regardless of its rightness or its historical truth — seems to jar us out of the lesson even as it teaches us a new one.

This tonal shift comes at some cost, but overall, 12 Years A Slave does a tremendous job of illustrating without sensationalism or exploitation the impossible, horrible dead-end qualities of slavery.  In nearly every scene, we are shown how no one escapes with an intact spirit, how everyone — black or white — is utterly ruined by their willing or unwilling participation in this madly unjust system.  Watching Solomon broken of his insistence that if only someone will listen to reason, he will be treated justly, is heartbreaking; seeing Paul Giamatti, as a practical-minded slaver, oversee the most inhumane and horrific of actions for a “fair price” is as vivid an illustration as one could want of Hannah Arendt’s perceptions of the quotidian qualities of evil reflected in a universally accepted system.  Another scene, where Solomon attempts to stop a woman from crying over the loss of her two children to strangers, is a perfect example of how no decision is a good one in such an awful situation, as is one where he makes a spontaneous decision to flee, only to realize that he has no idea where he is or where to go and everyone around him is hostile.  Cumberbatch provides a fine portrait of a man just aware enough of the brutality of his surroundings to feel guilt, but not aware enough to make a principled stand against it; and another scene, astonishing in its quiet power, sees Alfre Woodward play a house Negress, promoted to nearly the position of a white woman through her willingness to play along with her master’s predatorial ways, preaches the value of cooperation with the plantation owners as a way of easing one’s suffering — and then, just as calmly and quietly, foretells with some eagerness the day when those owners will be obliterated in a literal, Biblical Armageddon for their sins.  In every way, in every moment, we are reminded of the cost of America’s original sin, of the unmanageable debasement and dehumanization it left behind as the natural by-product of slavery as a fact.

Director Steve McQueen manages to play to his own strengths — a painterly visual sensibility that shows up in gorgeous screen compositions, beautiful color palettes of faded whites, muted blues, and smeared pink skies, and the ability to frame faces and bodies with a classical eye — while still stringing together a storytelling structure and pace that is coherent and rhythmic, while still staying vague enough (from Solomon’s perspective) to keep the viewer just a bit off balance.  It’s a truly beautiful film, with camerawork both expansive and intimate, and never more so than when the beauty is encroached on by horror; for it is then that we are reminded the most of Frederick Douglass’ lament that there is not an inch of the endless natural loveliness of the South that is not corrupted with the innocent blood of the slave.  (I’ve tried to refrain from discussing the reactions of other critics to 12 Years A Slave, here I must mention Stephanie Zacharek’s curious criticism that the movie undercuts its “raw feeling” with its exquisite visuals.  She complains that “Even when it depicts inhuman cruelty, as it often does, it never compromises its aesthetic purity”, a comment so bizarre it makes me wonder if she is familiar with the function of art; if McQueen is guilty of this, so too was Picasso in “Guernica”, Goya in the “Horrors of War” series, and practically every other visual artist who has attempted to illustrate monstrous behavior in a particular aesthetic mode of expression.)  The acting, too, is unimpeachable, from the tiniest bit parts (a number of familiar television faces, in particular, are surprising and gratifying to see) to the intense lead of Chiwetel Ejiofor.  Excellent throughout, even when McQueen makes the rare misstep of an unmotivated close-up, he has one scene in particular, as he reluctantly begins to sing along with a spiritual while burying an old field hand who dropped dead at his labors.  In many films, this scene would have been an artificially uplifting bit of bogus sentimentality; but Ejiofor, who never speaks a word but only sings, imbues it with such deeply lined, strongly felt, and utterly contradictory emotion, it takes the moment to a whole different level.  Rage, pity, sadness, exhaustion, grief, doubt, and a nearly infinitely remote desire for some kind of salvation play on his face for long seconds full of meaning.

12 Years A Slave encounters all the same problems that any such prestige film is bound to, from the need to appeal to the very audience you are attempting to indict to what we might term the artificiality of the truth.  But what spares it from being an overblown mediocrity, and makes it into something great, is its determination to meet those problems head-on and confront them.  It does not always succeed, but it also never shrinks from the task, and that is enough to commend it.  If it is not the indisputable great film about American slavery, it will hold until that film appears.

Mirrored from LEONARD PIERCE DOT COM.

22 Jan 12:17

Recommended Reading

by evanier

Steven Brill writes about a couple whose money (and probably at least one of their lives) is being saved by Obamacare. But they didn't go near it until tricked into it by their insurance agent because, you know, they'd heard how terrible it was.

22 Jan 12:12

Fee Advice

by evanier

Somewhere on this site, I'm sure I've complained about hotel Resort Fees. For those of you who don't know how these work, here's how they work…

You go online in search of vacation lodging and find a great price at the Hotel Trousers — $18 a night. You book it and then find out that the hotel charges a mandatory Resort Fee of $12 a night. This covers High Speed Wireless Internet, admittance to the Fitness Center, a copy of USA Today each morning, a couple of bottles of water and a glass of buttermilk. It doesn't matter that you didn't bring your laptop, don't believe in exercise, can't read, prefer tap water to bottled and are Lactose Intolerant. You have to pay the fee. So your $18 room is really $30.

For obvious reasons, a lot of folks object to these fees, especially when they only tell you about them in really tiny type. According to this, the F.T.C. is considering a ban on such and so are some legislative bodies. I wish they'd leave them be.

Here's why. The way I see it, abolishing Resort Fees is not going to give the traveler in our example the $18 room for $18. The hotel will merely mark it up to $30.

And then since they don't need to separate out those amenitities to build a package for which they can charge their Resort Fees, they'll be able to separate them out as options and charge for them. Suddenly, there'll be an additional fee for the High Speed Internet like there used to be. There'll be an additional fee for the Fitness Center, you'll have to buy those bottles of water and your USA Today, etc.

21 Jan 21:54

The Merry Pranksters of Automata

by Jimmy Maher

The Piman and Uncle Groucho

I closed my last article by noting that Ultimate Play the Game’s works can feel just a bit soulless to me with their slickness and unrelenting commercial focus — an opinion I’m sure many of you don’t share. Well, rest assured that I can’t attach any such complaint to my subject for today.

Automata UK was the creation of a pair of agitators named Mel Croucher and Christian Penfold who became the Merry Pranksters of the early British software industry, mixing absurdist humor with the DIY ethos of punk rock and more than a hint of an agitprop sensibility. Whatever else you care to say about them, you certainly can’t call them slick or commercial. Their works and their rhetoric harkened back to older utopian dreams for personal computing as a means to universal empowerment for all — dreams immersed in the ideals of the counterculture and promoted in the likes of the People’s Computer Company newsletter and the early issues of Creative Computing. With home computing taking off in Britain and the traditional forces of business and culture getting involved in a big way, those dreams were already beginning to sound quaint and anachronistic by the time Automata peaked in 1983 and 1984. Possessed as they were of about the level of business acumen you might expect from a pair of self-described “old hippies,” they were doomed from the start. Still, they had one hell of a lot of fun while they lasted.

Croucher was a disillusioned architect coming off a stint working under Rashid bin Saeed Al Maktoum to construct the modern Dubai. He’d also worked as a cartographer, played bass in rock bands, and briefly entertained the idea of becoming a painter. If Croucher was the would-be artist and visionary, Penfold was, relatively speaking, the more grounded; he’d sold everything from cars to plants to advertising space amidst various other jobs. Like many fruitful partnerships, they weren’t always sympatico with one another. Croucher declared that he was “to the left of Tony Benn” while Penfold was “to the right of Enoch Powell“: “That’s why it works — otherwise we’d come in in the morning and agree!”

Automata was founded circa 1977 on Croucher’s Dubai windfall. Like Melbourne House, it wasn’t initially conceived as a game or software developer, as is betrayed by the original full name: “Automata Cartography.” Capitalizing on Croucher’s background in cartography, they made tourist-friendly informational brochures and maps for the likes of the Sealink ferry service and British Airways. Those soon morphed into audio travel guides and promotions for foreign hotels as well as radio spots. Their guide to their home base of Portsmouth, narrated in the persona of of all people Charles Dickens, was heard by every tourist who booked a pleasure cruise around the harbor. They even produced some feature radio programming, such as a quiz program for Radio Victory that Penfold described as “rather like University Challenge without the brains.”

Mel Croucher and Christian Penfold, 1983

Mel Croucher and Christian Penfold, 1983

They were aboard a ferry on the English Channel, returning from working on a production for Sealink in the Channel Islands, when Croucher told Penfold about the Sinclair ZX81 computer he had just purchased, his first exposure to computing since the 1960s, when he’d struggled to teach the big machine at his university how to play “Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star” and flash its lights in rhythm. He’d seen advertisements for computer games in magazines for £4 or £5, a princely sum compared to what he and Penfold were used to getting paid for their work. And he recognized that the world stood on an artistic precipice.

I knew that computers were not for performing business functions at all, but would transform everything I was involved in. I was absolutely convinced that computers would facilitate the convergence of film, book, theatre and music, with the added miracle of interactivity.

Having learned from his struggles with ALGOL in earlier decades that he wasn’t much of a programmer, he asked Penfold if he’d like to take up the task, to implement his (Croucher’s) many ideas; Penfold seemed like he would have a better mind for the task. Penfold, as Croucher has delighted in telling interviewers ever since, promptly threw up — not in reaction to the idea, but because the crossing was rough and he was prone to seasickness. On that auspicious note, the new venture was born.

Options were of course decidedly limited on the ZX81 with its 1 K of memory. So Croucher and Penfold would put ten mini-games onto a cassette, each necessarily trivial in itself but building as a collection to address some overarching theme. Both reacted viscerally to violence in games even in this era when that meant no more than onscreen blobs knocking off other onscreen blobs. “If there is such a thing as an alien, it doesn’t want to come down to earth and get killed,” noted Croucher. “I have yet to find an arcade game where there is a full trial at the start,” rejoined Penfold. Croucher later put it even more strongly: “I think people who create violent games are lazy, ignorant, and have poodle shit for brains.” Thus Automata’s games from first to last would be resolutely nonviolent.

Yet that didn’t keep them from offending in other ways, as evidenced by their aptly named first tape, Can of Worms, with its “piss takes” (Croucher’s words) involving acne, vasectomies, Hitler, and Reagan, and featuring a Space Invaders satire along with Royal Flush, an anti-monarchy screed which, yes, does involve a toilet. It all seemed to Croucher the appropriate response to those combative early years of Thatcher’s reign, times of “repression, depression, recession, and political mayhem.” Some reviewers were predictably outraged, accusing Automata of “peddling pornography to kids” (exactly the sort of reaction, one senses, that Croucher and Penfold were hoping for). Others took it all more casually; Eric Deeson noted bemusedly in Your Computer that Can of Worms “must suffice for readers with bad taste until something more revolting appears.” Croucher and Penfold obligingly tried to up the ante with Love and Death, a progression from fertilization to death (a theme to which they would eventually return for their most famous work) and The Bible, always a subject guaranteed to enrage. All were storyboarded by Croucher and then programmed by Penfold in crude BASIC, which he bragged was like his poetry — “unstructured.”

When the Spectrum appeared and sold like crazy, Automata, like most software houses, quickly made the switch to the new machine with its color graphics and luxurious 48 K of memory. They came into their own with their first game for the Speccy, the most commercially successful they would ever release. Pimania is an illustrated text adventure involving the Piman, a pink fellow with a grotesquely huge nose whose relationship to the player lives on some uncertain ground between ally and antagonist. Croucher had based him on a neighbor, “a deadpan poet with a great Scottish accent and peculiar vocal delivery.” He quickly became Automata’s mascot. Children took to calling the office wanting to speak to him; Croucher or Penfold obligingly played the part. He starred in a comic strip drawn by Robin Evans which ran on the back cover of every issue of Popular Computing Weekly. And he became a beloved presence at shows and other events, with Penfold usually inside the costume. Penfold:

He is an escape — an extension of our own personalities — all the nice and nasty bits rolled into one. But now he no longer just exists in our minds. He is real. He has his own character.

As for the game itself, the first puzzle tells you just about everything you need to know about what you’re in for. The opening screen simply says, “A key turns the lock,” then refuses to do anything else until you figure out that it wants you to press the Spectrum’s PI key. After that you get to work out that navigation is based not on the usual compass directions but the hands of a clock. And then things start to get difficult. Depending on how you look at it and how charitable you’re feeling, Pimania is either a surrealistic but tough-as-nails old-school adventure game, a confused and confusing and essentially unsolvable effort all too typical of beginning designers and programmers writing their first adventure, or a piece of sadistic satire sending up the absurdities of early adventure games.

Whatever its virtues or flaws, Pimania sold quite well, largely on the back of the Piman’s inexplicable popularity and a brilliant promotional idea. This was inspired by Kit Williams’s 1979 children’s book Masquerade, which encoded within it the location of a hare made out of gold and jewels and buried in a secret location somewhere in England. Thousands scoured the book for clues to the golden hare’s whereabouts until an intrepid seeker finally recovered it almost three years after publication. The book itself became a bestseller.

The Golden Sundial of Pi

The Golden Sundial of Pi

Croucher and Penfold commissioned De Beers Diamond International Award winner Barbara Tipple to make a Golden Sundial of Pi out of gold, lapis lazuli, obsidian, and diamond, at a claimed price of an extraordinary £6000. Winning Pimania would provide the clues as to where and, crucially, when to show up to claim the prize; only one day of the year would suffice.

Contests were quickly becoming de rigueur for almost every major adventure-game release in Britain, but few attracted the attention and passion of this one. And yet the Pinmania mystery went unsolved, even though Penfold’s BASIC was an accessible target for would-be code divers. As months stretched into years, some began darkly hinting that maybe there wasn’t actually a Golden Sundial at all, that the whole thing was an elaborate practical joke being played on the gaming public — which admittedly would fit right into Automata’s public persona, but would also be unspeakably cruel. One poor fellow, convinced he’d cracked the code, even made plans to jet off to Bethlehem for Christmas. When Penfold and Croucher got wind of that, they were kind enough to tell him through the press that he was on the wrong track; I don’t know whether he believed them or went off anyway. The rather more accessible Stonehenge was a favorite target of many others, while yet more, having worked out a connection to Pegasus, visited seemingly everything everywhere having anything to do with horses. All for naught.

Uncle Groucho (Croucher) and the Piman (Penfold)

Uncle Grouch (Croucher) and the Piman (Penfold)

Even as the Pimania mystery remained unsolved, Automata launched a new contest to go with their next adventure, which bore the intimidating title of My Name is Uncle Groucho… You Win a Big Fat Cigar. As trippy as its predecessor, it had players chasing Groucho Marx — who now became Croucher’s alter ego to join Penfold in his Piman suit — around the United States. It was all surreal enough that it led interviewer Tristan Donovan recently to ask Croucher whether “drugs were a factor.” Croucher insists that he and Penfold were running on nothing stronger than beer and cigarettes.

This time the contest at least was a bit more conventional. The first player to identify a celebrity from clues provided in the game would win a trip to Hollywood on the Concorde and passage back home on the QE2. This one had an actual winner in relatively short order, one Phil Daley of Stoke-on-Tent. The celebrity in question, it turned out, was Mickey Mouse.

Piman and Friends

In addition to their own games, Croucher and Penfold also published quite a number of titles which they received from outside programmers. Each would be retrofitted into Automata’s ever-growing lore, which soon included a cast of characters largely drawn from the comic strip, with names like Ooncle Arthur, Swettibitz, and (my favorite) Lady Clair Sinclive. Each outside submission got an appropriately Automatatized new name, usually an awful pun: Pi-Balled, Pi-Eyed, Pi in the Sky. And each also got a theme song on the other side of the cassette, recorded on a little studio setup in Croucher’s front room. On these Croucher, who was something of a frustrated rock star, could run wild. The results are some weird amalgamation of musique concrète, New Wave synth-pop, a Monty Python sketch, and Croucher’s personal hero Frank Zappa. Or, for another set of comparisons: Your Computer called the track below (included with the Groucho game) “a curious fusion of a Mark Knopfler vocal and Depeche Mode backing, with a Bonzo Dog Band playout.”

And then came 1984 and Croucher’s magnum opus, Deus Ex Machina. He largely retired from Merry Prankstering for some six months to pour his heart and soul into it. He described it not as an Automata project proper but a “personal indulgence.” He believed he was creating Art, as well as the future of computerized entertainment:

I thought that by the mid-1980s ALL cutting-edge computer games would be like interactive movies, with proper structures, real characters, half-decent original stories, an acceptable soundtrack, a variety of user-defined narratives and variable outcomes. So I thought I’d better get in first, and produce the computer-game equivalent to Metropolis and Citizen Kane before the bastards started churning out dross. I wanted individuals to become totally immersed in the piece.

Penfold recognized Deus Ex Machina as “the crescendo of an idea” for Croucher, “an emotional achievement.”

Croucher had the idea of synchronizing a soundtrack to a computer game, to create an integrated, multimedia experience well before that word was in common usage. Because the Spectrum’s sound capabilities were rudimentary at best, the soundtrack would come on a separate cassette which the player must play at the same time as the game. The theme would be worthy of a prog-rock concept album: the journey of an individual through Shakespeare’s Seven Stages of Man in a vaguely dystopian postmodern world of mechanization, media saturation, and “Defect Police.”. Perhaps it didn’t make a whole lot of literal sense — you’re somehow born from a dropping left behind by the last mouse on earth “as the nerve gas eased its sphincter” — but that hadn’t stopped Tommy or The Wall, had it?

The soundtrack, some 45 minutes in length, was mostly recorded by Croucher at home; he would have loved to have put a “half-decent band” together, but finances wouldn’t allow. He was, however, determined to get some well-known voices to feature on it, and to record them properly. He therefore booked precious time in a big London studio.

He recruited Frankie Howerd, an old-school showman and perennial on the British comedic circuit known if not always loved by everyone in Britain in the same way as a Rodney Dangerfield or Gallagher in the United States, to play the role of the head of the Defect Police, a “terrifying idiot.” (“It turned out that the real thing would eventually appear in the form of George W. Bush, but let’s not get into that.”) Howerd showed little understanding or interest in the project. He did his job — no more, no less.

More enthusiastic was former Doctor Who Jon Pertwee as the master of ceremonies. He angered everyone by arriving two hours late for his session, but explained that he’d fallen off his motorcycle on the way over and literally limped in as quickly as he could, bruised and still in leathers. All was forgiven, especially when he did a brilliant job. He and Croucher became fast friends, so much so that they later wrote a book together full of absurdist ramblings.

Croucher first wanted Patrick Moore, an eccentric popularizer of astronomy who was sort of the British Carl Sagan, complete with unforgettable ticks that made him a television natural, to play the part of a sperm — “that would have been utterly surreal.” But when that fell through, he lucked into pub rocker Ian Dury of “Hit Me With Your Rhythm Stick” fame. Dury “hated what mainstream games were offering kids,” and was excited to work on an alternative.

For the female voice of the machine, Dury recommended Marianne Faithfull, but she “was buried in drugs and we couldn’t get a meeting together.” After a bid for pop diva Hazel O’Connor also fell through, Croucher settled on a local singer named Donna Bailey, who wound up contributing the best singing on the soundtrack by far. The choir from nearby Warblington School also popped in to provide some “Another Brick in the Wall”-style vocals.

The game that accompanied all this was programmed to Croucher’s specifications by Andrew Stagg, a “boy genius” assembly coder he had discovered. It consists of a series of simple action games synchronized to the soundtrack. Your goal, such as it is, is to keep your “degree of ideal entity” as high as possible; each mistake in the games costs you percentage points. However, play continues inexorably onward no matter how badly you screw up, an obvious limitation of syncing a non-interactive soundtrack to an allegedly interactive experience. Then again, maybe that’s for the best: the games are not only of rather limited interest but also brutally difficult. I’ve never seen anyone get to the end with anything other than the worst possible score of 0%. For Croucher, the score wasn’t the point anyway:

The metaphor of the score is incidental, and I hoped people would interpret it to suit themselves. Do nothing — you’ll never win. Do everything right — you’ll feel good for a while, you’ll be regarded well according to society’s rules, but you’ll still never win. However, as the man [on the soundtrack] says — Imagine if this was nothing more than a computer game and we could start our lives all over again, and do it better. That was the only meaning really.

I have some problems with Deus Ex Machina and the rhetoric deployed around it, which we’ll get to momentarily, but when it works it can approach the total immersion Croucher was striving for, gameplay and music blending into a seamless whole. “The Lover” is a particular favorite, a gentle ballad, well sung by Bailey, that morphs into something more disturbing along with the game on the screen.


Despite good reviewers by writers who admittedly weren’t entirely sure what to make of a piece of unabashed multimedia art sandwiched into their usual diet of Jet Set Willy and Manic Miner, despite being released just in time for the big Christmas buying season, sales were about as close to nonexistent as they could conceivably be. By February, some five months on from release, just 700 copies had been sold on the Spectrum; a more recent port to the Commodore 64 had sold all of twelve. Still, Deus Ex Machina won “Program of the Year” from the Computer Trade Association that February. But it was now, as a profile in Sinclair User from this period put it, “an angry, bitter world” for Automata, the easygoing insanity of Groucho and the Piman replaced by uglier sentiments. Penfold dropped all of the jokey pretensions at his acceptance speech to voice his opinion of the state of a changed industry in no uncertain terms.

He and Croucher blamed Deus Ex Machina‘s failure entirely on new systems of software distribution. When they had gotten into the business back in 1981, software was sold mostly via mail-order advertisements in the hobbyist magazines, with the remainder being sold directly to the handful of computer shops scattered around the country. This approach became untenable, however, when computers came to the High Street and the big vanilla chains like Boots and W.H. Smith got into the game. As in virtually every other retail industry, distributors stepped in to act as the middle men between the publishers and the final points of sale. With far more software being produced by 1984 than they could possibly handle, these could afford to be selective; indeed, they would say their survival depended upon it. They carefully evaluated each game sent to them to establish not only whether it was a reasonably professional, bug-free effort but also whether it had enough mass appeal to be worthy of precious shelf space. There was an inevitable power imbalance at play: small publishers, desperate to get their games onto shelves in what was turning into a very uncertain year, needed distributors more than distributors needed them. Thus the distributors could afford to drive hard bargains, demanding a 40 to 60 percent discount off retail price and a grace period of up to two months after delivery to pay the bill. They also wanted games to fit into one of three price points: £2 for older “classics” and newer discount titles; £6 for typical new games; £10 for big prestige releases like The Lords of Midnight or anything from the demigods over at Ultimate Play the Game.

Automata bucked every one of these demands. Not only did they continue to demand high margins and cash on delivery, but they insisted that Deus Ex Machina retail at a grandiose £15. They weren’t entirely alone; others fought the new world order and sometimes, at least temporarily, won. The most famous among them is Acornsoft, who insisted on a similarly high price point for Elite. When a number of distributors refused to carry the game, Acornsoft simply shrugged and sold to those who would, until Elite became a transformative hit and the recalcitrant distributors came back begging for Acornsoft’s business. The artsy, avant-garde Deus Ex Machina, however, obviously lacked the mass appeal of an Elite. This time it was mostly the distributors who shrugged and moved on, with a predictable impact on the game’s commercial fortunes.

Given these circumstances, Croucher was and is eager to attribute Deus Ex Machina‘s fate to the age-old struggle between art and commerce:

The corporates had taken over as they always will when they spot a new lucrative market. They wanted standard product. Deus was designed as non-standard and I got the market completely wrong.

I suppose that’s fair enough as far as it goes, even given the odd fact that Automata was in a death struggle to charge their customers more than the going rate. The thing is, though, the suits were kind of right in this instance. Taken as a one- or two-time experience, Deus Ex Machina is intriguing, even inspiring. As a game, however, it’s not up to much at all. It took a retrospective review in ACE magazine to finally acknowledge the obvious: “the actual gameplay was strictly humdrum.” Now, Croucher and others might respond, and not without justification, that to evaluate it the same way one evaluates a more traditional game is rather missing the point; Deus Ex Machina is more multimedia experience than game. Fair enough. Except that it’s hard to overlook the fact that players were being asked to pay £15 for the privilege, one hell of a lot of money in 1984 Britain. For that price — or, for that matter, for £10 or £6 or even £2 — they deserved more than an hour or two of entertainment. Deus Ex Machina‘s failure to find a market was indeed a failure of distribution. Yet it’s not one that can really be blamed on the distributors; again, that’s just the way that the retail business works, whether you’re selling shoes, books, or computer software. It wasn’t their fault that there was no practical way to get shorter-form works to the public for a price that wouldn’t leave them feeling ripped off. The distributors just recognized, probably rightly, that there was no practical place for Deus Ex Machina in the software industry of 1984. Such is the curse of the visionary.

Automata never recovered commercially or psychologically from the failure of Deus Ex Machina. The old spirit of anarchic fun became one of passive-aggressive petulance. “Automata’s next product will be something truly wonderful, but we’re just not going to release it until everybody pulls their socks up,” Penfold declared. “Automata are too good for this industry.”

Croucher walked away in mid-1985. Penfold at first did the expected, declaring his intention to struggle on, but Croucher’s departure marked the effective end to Automata as a going concern. Penfold dropped out of sight, while Croucher continued his career as (in Jaroslav Švelch’s words) a “perpetually failed visionary.” He designed another avant-garde game or two for other publishers; tried and failed to launch a multimedia game console that would combine laser-disc video with traditional computer graphics; wrote a linked series of comic fantasy adventures of one Tamara Knight for Crash magazine; wrote a column for Computer Shopper; designed a game and a viral-marketing campaign for Duracell; did God knows what all inside and outside the computer industry. He recently launched a new edition of Automata and secured Kickstarter funding for a Deus Ex Machina 2 which has not yet emerged.

The original Deus Ex Machina has become a minor cause célèbre of academics and advocates for games as art, who tend to overrate it somewhat; it’s certainly interesting, certainly visionary, but hardly a deathless masterpiece. It’s simply the best that could be done by these people with these resources at this time — and there’s no shame in that. Much the same could be said about the rest of Automata’s works. They’re great to talk about, but too crude to be all that engaging to play today. Automata embraced a punk-rock ethos of production, but failed to recognize that games have in some senses a higher bar to clear. A bit of hiss on a record may be discountable, even charming, but a game with similar technical flaws is simply excruciating to play; it’s right here that comparisons between independent games and independent music break down horribly. Appropriately enough for what often seemed more an exercise in performance art than a real software company, Automata’s crazy catalog of subversive games is most fascinating simply because it existed at all.

Mel Croucher, Sue Cooper, Christian Penfold (as the Piman), and Lizi Newman

Mel Croucher, Sue Cooper, Christian Penfold (as the Piman), and Lizi Newman

But before Automata leaves the stage and I end this article, there’s one more piece of the story to tell. On July 22, 1985, Sue Cooper and Lizi Newman, a schoolteacher and music-shop proprietor respectively from Yorkshire, arrived at an odd local landmark on the Sussex Downs: a gigantic horse cut into a chalk hill. They stood at the horse’s mouth in a driving rain, looking around nervously. Then the Piman clambered out from behind a clump of bushes. He presented the ladies with their prize while Croucher played his theme song one last time. Automata had played fair after all; the Golden Sundial of Pi was real. Perhaps due to the fact that Automata was winding down and they were tired of spending their July 22s crouching in the Sussex mud, they had even shown the women a bit of mercy: they really should have been standing at the horse’s arse.

Penfold and Croucher wave bye-bye

(If you’d like to experience Deus Ex Machina for yourself — and despite my reservations it’s well worth the effort — I’ve prepared a care package with the Spectrum tape image, the soundtrack as MP3 files, and the manual. Both sides of the tape are in the same tape image. The emulator should automatically load in the second side when the time comes, leaving you only to start the second soundtrack. That how it works under Fuse, anyway.

Information and art for this article were drawn from the following magazines: Your Spectrum of December 1984; Popular Computing Weekly of June 30 1983, January 12 1984, April 4 1985, November 28 1985; Home Computing Weekly of July 19 1983, December 13 1983, February 26 1985; Computer and Video Games of November 1982, December 1982, January 1984, October 1985, September 1986; Crash of February 1984, May 1985, April 1986; Big K of December 1984; Sinclair User of September 1984, February 1985, April 1985; Your Computer of February 1982, December 1983; ACE of May 1988; Computer Choice of January 1984. Also invaluable were ZX Golden Years, the new Automata website, the Deus Ex Machina 2 website, and the Piman Files. The latter includes all of the Automata songs as MP3 files, including the one I’ve sampled here.)


Comments
21 Jan 18:53

Adam Gopnik on Duke Ellington

by Michael Leddy
Ellington was a dance-band impresario who played no better than O.K. piano, got trapped for years playing “jungle music” in gangster nightclubs, and at his height produced mostly tinny, brief recordings.
Sounds like an Amazon troll, but it’s Adam Gopnik, writing about Duke Ellington in The New Yorker (December 23 and 30, 2013). This summary of Ellington’s accomplishments (followed by words of praise) suggests a writer who doesn’t understand Ellington’s accomplishments — as the leader of a highly idiosyncratic ensemble, as an instrumentalist, as a composer, as an early master of the recording studio. Though “tinny” might make sense if Gopnik’s experience of early Ellington is limited to major-label digital remastering.

And that’s the problem: Gopnik’s understanding of his subjects — Ellington and jazz — is limited. That’s a polite way of saying that Gopnik doesn’t know what he’s writing about.

Concerning Louis Armstrong:
He was not just a genius but an irresistible lion. Even the old complaints about his having sold out no longer seem credible: he simply went from making most of the best jazz records ever made to making some of best pop records.
“Most of the best jazz records ever made”: really? What’s glaringly wrong here though is the claim that Armstrong was charged with selling out. The surprise success of “Hello, Dolly!” was, if anything, a cause for celebration among those devoted to pre-rock-and-roll styles of music. (Armstrong dethroned the Beatles.) The real complaint about Armstrong (utterly mistaken, to my mind) was that he was an Uncle Tom, smiling and servile.

Concerning Ellington’s musicians:
The individual players he employed weren’t up-to-date urban players but, often, less sophisticated New Orleans musicians, whose great gift was a distinctly human tone, often achieved with the use of homemade mutes and plungers.
Ahh, primitivism. This claim is, by any measure, false. I can think offhand of just two New Orleans Ellingtonians: Barney Bigard (clarinet) and Wellman Braud (bass), both consummate musicians. Bubber Miley (cornet and trumpet) and Joe “Tricky Sam” Nanton (trombone), whose mute and plunger styles were crucial parts of Ellington’s “jungle” sound, were from South Carolina and New York.

Concerning Billy Strayhorn’s contributions:
It’s long been known by fans that many of the most famous “Ellington” numbers are really the arranger Billy Strayhorn’s, including “Take the A Train” and “Chelsea Bridge” . . . .
Strayhorn was a composer and co-composer. Ellington referred to him as “my writing and arranging companion.” The implication here is that knowledge of Strayhorn’s authorship was inside information. That’s nonsense. There are countless live recordings in which Ellington says something along these lines: “And now our theme, Billy Strayhorn’s ‘Take the “A” Train.’” And the A takes quotation marks.

Concerning the way in which Ellington musicians may have created phrases that became material for Ellington compositions:
What [the alto saxophonist] Johnny Hodges was doing in making those new melodies may have been more like the copying errors in ceaseless cell fission than like premeditated decision: as he set to playing the same chord changes over and over, night after night, a lucky error in a note may, one night, have touched another and become an innovation.
Well, Johnny Hodges didn’t make mistakes. But also: I doubt that any improvising musician would recognize in Gopnik’s imaginings a description of how improvisation and composition work.

It’s sad to see such ill-informed writing about music in the magazine that once gave Whitney Balliett a home.

Related reading
All OCA Duke Ellington posts (Pinboard)
Two Bands (The bit of Gopnik’s piece that’s not behind the New Yorker paywall)

[I haven’t yet read Terry Teachout’s biography. I found his Pops: A Life of Louis Armstrong (2009) unimpressive. The pages of Duke I’ve sampled in Google Books read like a pastiche of previous writing on Ellington. I am happy though to see Ellington holding a Mongol pencil on the book’s cover.]

You’re reading a post from Michael Leddy’s blog Orange Crate Art. Your reader may not display this post as its writer intended.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons 3.0 License.
20 Jan 23:51

It is easier now that I look like a guy

by Guest Blogger

This is a guest post by Fortister, who prefers to remain otherwise anonymous.

This was inspired by a question on Twitter by Dr. Kortney Ziegler: “so much energy focused on women in tech — rightfully so — but for trans men or other non binary gender identities…crickets…”

It is easier now that I look like a guy.

I think of myself as a shapeshifter, and with that comes shifting perspective. I am non-binary identified. I’ve kept my expressive voice and use female pronouns out of political stubbornness, because in this place, at this time, being a woman is exceptional, and I didn’t want to disappear. I spend enough time as the second woman in the room that it would feel like leaving my community to leave that role. Even as a woman, though, it is still easier now that I look like a guy. Masculine privilege is a powerful thing.

In meetings I state my opinion with no apologies or waffling and no one is taken aback. I get invited to dinners with coworkers and we talk about work instead of their wives. I don’t get hit on at industry events, and I go to hotel room parties at conferences with only lingering fear from another life. No one expresses surprise at my technical competence, and no one has yelled at me once since I shifted.

There was a time my long hair and I were assumed to be someone’s wife or girlfriend or HR rep. Now HR reps walk up to me. I know when it is time for a haircut because people start questioning my tone or dismissing my opinions. There was a time when I wondered how much makeup to wear, and which shirts were too thin. Now my clothes come from Amazon and I dress just like everyone I work with and I wake up fifteen minutes before rolling out the door.

It’s easier now.

The usual downsides of my identity don’t even seem to apply. No one questions my pronouns; after all at times I am the only example of a “woman” in the room. Neither do I feel misgendered as simply “woman”; just being a programmer queers my gender. It is convenient for the men around me to appropriate my presence and ignore the distinction. My boss doesn’t even blink when I get “Sir’ed” at a business dinner.

The women’s bathroom is nearly empty and the women there are unsurprised by my presence. We usually know each others names and at least half them are as grateful for the lack of gender police as I am. I still glance down with a self-deprecating smile, because I don’t want to make anyone any more uncomfortable than we already are.

Just because it is easier doesn’t mean it is easy. So much of my effort has gone to things that have nothing to do with tech. I choose my company for culture and the possibility of being promoted as a woman, even one who looks like a man, instead of for the technical problems that I would like to solve. I don’t move around as much because I would have to establish myself all over again. I’ve wasted countless hours to men who find it easier to ask questions of me than my colleagues, though I value the opportunities to mentor as well. At meetings I’m distracted from the topic at hand when the only other woman is ignored. “What was that?” I ask, interrupting the interrupter, but in the same moment I’ve lost the technical thread in a rush of adrenaline. At technical conferences men ask me what I think about women in tech, or guiltily admit their discomfort with our culture, instead of inquiring about my work. I’ve given up on Hacker News after yet another vicious round of misogyny and had abandoned Slashdot years before, and so my coworkers talk about things I have no energy to seek out for myself. I limit my conferences to ones where I will not be an oddity. (In the rest of the world my masculinity makes me an oddity. Here it is the vestiges of womanhood.)

Instead of spending my weekend hacking open source I spend my weekend figuring out how to defend the notion of my humanity. How to explain, just a little more clearly, why the oblivion of the men around me is harmful and destructive. How to make it about them, so that maybe finally they will care. I’m glad I’m not job hunting; instead of a github I have a portfolio of blog posts I’m too afraid to share (they are all insufficient for the impossible task of changing my world.) When people talk about wanting to only hire the most passionate, the most committed programmers I want to tell them that if I weren’t I would have never made it this far. Merely being a mid-career woman programming is a demonstration of passion the privileged men around me will never have an opportunity to display.

I can smell their fear, the possibility that their mediocrity is merely covered by privilege. When they protest that women aren’t interested, it is with the fear that their house of masculine cards might come toppling down. There is nothing manly about typing, about understanding systems, about communicating with humans and machines to create useful tools. Our work is not white-collar networking and control. It is not blue-collar physical strength. It is not pink-collar emotional labor. It is something new, beyond the gender binary. A huge amount of political work has gone into turning this profession masculine, but that distinction is precarious and some of us seek to actively undermine it. There is nothing masculine about what we do, and so the masculine performances that accompany it are beyond ridiculous. To need pictures of naked women to prove that we are all Straight Men here, we must know it isn’t true. Some of us are so anxious that if we can not use “he” in our job postings and documentation we might, what, forget that we are men?

I have no sympathy; some of us didn’t have this option. If you rely on your profession to validate your gender identity, you are setting yourself up for disappointment as well as acting like an exclusionary jerk.

The capitalists exploit men’s fear of being unmanly, offering them paltry rewards relative to the value they produce in exchange for brutal hours, insulting treatment and the inevitable eventual betrayal of their values. “Do no evil” becomes “evil is hard to define”, and if men admit they care they are considered soft. Organizing for working conditions or caring about missing your children’s childhoods would be womanly, not ruggedly individualistic. When there is any pushback, it is cloaked in the most masculine language possible, of “life hacking”, of seeking time to lift heavy objects or get trashed to cover for the lack of meaningful interpersonal relationships in our work-dominated lives. The only alternative to the capitalist-driven workplace is the even-more masculine world of VC and the near-certainty of failure, with egos protected by the knowledge that they are at least not women. They are doing something women cannot do, they assume, rather than doing something no one with any self respect would be willing to do, woman or man.

It is easier because I merely look like a guy. I do not need to protest my manliness, because I know in my womanly education and upbringing I was taught skills that are valuable here. “He” is not as valuable a programmer as “they” are, since “he” is artificially limited. The competence of women is no threat to my self-image; it is patently obvious to me that women can code because I have met good programmers who are women in the spaces where we congregate, reassuring each other of our existence when the people around us deny it. I do not need to believe that I am special, that my profession is exclusionary, in order to feel whole, nor am I willing to write off the millions of potential programmers who have never had the set of happy accidents that led me to the profession. I seek to prove neither my relevance nor masculinity, since I am confident of both. That confidence comes from having to fight for them; it is impossible to know what we are capable of if we never reach our limits.

Men still tell me openly that they think women are better at “that people stuff” than “technical things”, as though their opinion outweighs my experience and citations and as though technical problems were not caused by people. They say that boys are better at math, as though they don’t turn to StackOverflow any time they need an equation. A few brave and very ignorant men suggest that it’s my masculinity that enables me to code. I tell them the best software development class I took was Introduction to Writing Poetry and I am the only one in it who became a programmer. I tell them a story where our insistence on masculinity is bankrupting our profession. I say that there are millions of women who have been driven from the field by the ignorance and sexist behavior of people like them. Each time, I blush in fear at my audacity, but my masculinity protects me. Before the shift, they laughed at my protestations of belonging or mocked my supposed naivete. Now in person the worst they do is walk away or change the subject uncomfortably.

Online, of course, is a different story. I am either assumed male or dismissed, belittled and told to make sandwiches if I make a point to be read female (I use sex here purposefully, for lack of better terminology: online I’ve found read sex more important than identity, voice, tone or gendered behavior. That reading of sex, of course, is fraught.) The area for us shifters is erased; there is no true self for me to show because there is no space in people’s expectations for me. I am presumed to not exist.

Online it’s easy to be a man. It is also deeply uncomfortable; it feels like a lie to erase my other life. However, going out of my way to be read a woman is to cut away a part of myself as well. This is perhaps part of why I keep to the shadows, the private forums, the feminist hideaways. Among the geeky feminists, I have found a story that allows my existence. Things can be more complicated.

Editor’s note: We welcome and encourage guest post submissions from trans women, and from non-binary-identified, genderqueer, gender-fluid, and/or agender people who were coercively assigned male at birth, about their experiences in geeky communities, professions, or subcultures — as well as any other geek feminist or social-justice-related topic. We would love to feature more guest posts about the experience of being gender-non-conforming in tech, from people with a variety of lived experiences.

20 Jan 17:18

Power, Principles and Execution

by Cicero
Sometimes we hear the facile argument that principles are nothing without power. It is the justification for most political expediency and it leads directly to political transvestism and the hollow morality of Tony Blair. Yet there is another aspect of politics which is less obvious- that is less obvious to politicians. There is the question of- once having achieved power- how principles might be put into action. Famously, Blair himself suggested that he was just about competent at the political process by the time that he was leaving office. There are just so many obstacles, not least the obstruction of civil servants and other entrenched interests. The execution of government policy is the yardstick of success, yet few politicians at the outset of their time in office are prepared to handle the problems that come with power. 

The fact is that the current generation of political leaders are even less prepared than their predecessors. The likes of Cameron, Clegg and Miliband, with essentially no career outside politics, also have no management experience outside politics, which means no management experience. This is not a small problem, because without genuine executive experience they- like Blair- have to learn on the job, and the result is often a total balls-up. It is an interesting contrast to see Ministers who do have managerial experience, like Ed Davey, or Vince Cable, and those who do not. The fact is that- in the face of entrenched Tory opposition- Ed Davey as Energy and Climate Change Secretary and Vince Cable as Business Secretary have enacted large parts of the Lib Dem agenda, and they can do this because they understand the issues and complexities that are involved in execution. By contrast, the Lord President of the Council has absolutely failed to enact any of the Lib Dem agenda of radical political reform- and although the idea of radically changing British politics is rightly popular in the country few even know that this is such a central part of our agenda. Our leader has principles- often well expressed- he has nominal power, but he has not been able to execute.

Some would say that he faced more difficulties and more hostility than Ed Davey or Vince Cable, and perhaps that is true. However, the Rennard fiasco simply reminds me once more of the lack of managerial experience. Sexual harassment is, alas, still an issue in the workplace and the question of what is and is not appropriate can often be a fine line. Nevertheless there are long established principles which must be followed when complaints are made- as we now know, the party had not kept up with best practice and allowed an unfortunate situation to grow ever more bitter. That is a major failure of leadership in itself. 

Alex Carlile and Chris Davies have behaved in a frankly "extremely unhelpful" way because they do not accept fact that the Webster report, far from vindicating Chris, as they seem to believe, suggests that even if inadvertently, Chris Rennard had a pattern of behaviour that made some women uncomfortable. An apology and an agreement to put the affair behind all concerned is all it takes. The fact that Davies and Carlile maintain a legalistic and truculent support for an unreasonable position is not acceptable.  As leader, Nick Clegg must ensure that on the one hand the Webster Report is fully complied with and on the other that this is the end of the whole unfortunate affair. 

It is infuriating that basic measures to cope with a very common workplace problem have not been  put into place. It is even more infuriating that the leadership, having had months of notice has made such a balls up of this. It is not far short of disgraceful that Davies and Carlile can apply legalese petrol onto the flames. Most of all though it reflects very badly indeed on Nick that things should have got to his stage. Susan Gaszczak told Nick to "man up". I can only echo this- the party is still very frail after the shocks of the past few years, and unless we can get a grip, we will lose our way completely. 

Principles must not be compromised- and that includes respect for women. 

Power can not be retained unless we reiterate what we stand for and to speak up for the real reform our country needs- "stability" is not what we need at all- we need radical change which must be explained and sold to the British people.

In the end, however, power means nothing unless we can deliver- and that is the essence of leadership.
20 Jan 09:46

This Nation’s Saving Throw

by LP

DUNGEON MASTER RICHIE – Who’s on point?

KEVIN - Hillyard.

HILLYARD – The hell I am!

BENNY – You are, Hilly. You agreed to run point for me when I sold you my +2 short sword back in East Wind Dell.

H – Fuck.

DM – Okay.

K – What was that roll for?

DM – None of your business.

K – I’ll give you two hundred gold pieces if you tell me what the roll was for. Was it a wandering monster?

DM – You gotta be kidding. Two hundred gold pieces? Don’t insult me. Have you got anything of real value to offer?

K – Uh…I’m a little light.

B – I bet your girlfriend isn’t a little light.

H – She’s a leech, Kevin.

K – Fuck you guys. At least I have a girlfriend.

B – Suboptimal, Kevin. Totally suboptimal.

DM – Are we going to talk about Kevin’s girlfriend, or are we going to come to a Pareto-preferred outcome for this roll?

B – I got five bucks.

K – Hold on, Benny. What’s the five bucks for, Rich?

DM – It’s for the roll. I told you.

K – What about the roll?

DM – For…look, you don’t think I’m gonna cheat you, do you, Kevin?

K – Get me a standard contract, Benny.

B – Where’s that?

H – It’s in the back of the Player’s Handbook.

K – No, that’s the character sheet. The contract is in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, Libertarian Edition.

DM – Fine, fine.

K – The five gets me what kind of roll it is…

DM – Okay, I’ll just write it up, and –

K – …and the result.

DM – For five bucks? Forget it.

K – Ten.

DM – This is an important roll.

K – I only got five, plus…

H – Ten plus the rest of these Funyuns.

DM – Deal.

K – Good job, Hilly.

DM – Okay. You called it. It’s a wandering monster roll, and…

B – Man, what a waste of money.

DM – You want to hear the result or not?

K – Might as well.

DM – It’s a rust monster.

K – What?

H – Fuck that. I’m not fighting one of those.

B – How can you do that to us, Rich? What did we do to you? Was is that big scene with the Customs and Duties Officer at Rivenrock?

DM – Look, guys. That’s just what I rolled. It’s just the luck of the dice.

H – Those things are walking wealth-confiscators. They represent punitive taxation. They’re living symbols of the leechlike qualities of the state. I am not fighting a rust monster.

K – All right, Rich. Let’s talk brass tacks. What’s it gonna take?

DM – Kevin, you know the rules. I can’t just re-roll it.

K – So what are we looking at?

DM – A buck to move the roll by one in either direction.

B – Okay, so…let’s see…where does eighteen bucks get us?

DM – Hobgoblins. Uh…nine of them.

B – If I make it an even twenty?

DM – Still hobgoblins, but only six.

K – Whattya think, guys?

B – Better than that goddamn rust monster.

H – Hobgoblins are pretty tough, though.

B – Yeah, and they don’t carry a lot of cash.

H – Where does that leave our internal cost/benefit calculus?

K – PB is still greater than p*f.

H – I say we do it.

B – Yeah. We don’t want a repeat of what happened with Tyler.

K – Why do you keep bringing Tyler up, Benny?

B – He was a good party member, man. He was our friend. And we left him behind.

H – We’ve been over this and over this…

B – It doesn’t make it right.

DM – Look, guys, I need a decision.

K – Benny, I didn’t want to hand Tyler over to that frost giant. But you elected me team leader to do a job. And my job is to do anything within the rules to maximize profits for our shareholders.

H – It would have been immoral not to sell Tyler in exchange for our freedom.

K – Six hobgoblins?

DM – Yep.

K – Twenty bucks?

DM – Yep.

K – Hilly, what’s our experience point situation?

H – Just under, with Benny about over.

K – And the min./max. on the hobgoblin’s treasure?

B – Within risk-to-profit norms, according to the Monster Manual pages Rich sold me last week.

K – It’s a deal.

20 Jan 09:24

Ukip Has An Anti-LGBT Freedom Problem, And It Is Far Deeper Than Just Religious Belief.

by noreply@blogger.com (Jae Kay)
Ukip want to be presented as the freedom-loving party. They try desperately to pretend, for it is not true, to be "libertarian". But when it comes to Ukippers themselves and how they deal with others personal lives, you truly come to see the "real" Ukip. And the real Ukip has a major issue with LGBT people and their freedom.

Any reader of this blog will know I occasionally mention their odd candidates and their even odder views on homosexuality. There was Mike Mendoza who believed 1) gay people don't like football, 2) people who don't like football are more likely to be paedophiles and then 3) put those two thoughts into one paragraph. There was David Nixon whose leaflet was used to "smear" Ukip. Winston McKenzie said same-sex couples adopting was akin to child abuse, ironically not long after a council had tried to remove kids from a Ukip supporting family! And then there was Julia Gasper who was suspended from her position in the party many, many months after she first aired her dislike for LGBT folk.

When you follow those stories through you find Ukip, as a party, really doesn't know how to handle these people. The current example is a case in point. David Silvester, an ex-Tory Ukip councillor in Hendon, wrote a letter to his local paper criticising David Cameron and same-sex marriage and, in the strange style we've come to expect from US based evangelicals, blamed the recent flooding around the country on the passing of the same-sex marriage bill. A small Twitterstorm broke out and gradually the story found its way on to large news service's headlines.

Nigel Farage and the party spokesperson defended his right to express his religious beliefs, even if unorthodox. This would be more acceptable if Ukip hadn't sacked Olly Neville over his support of same-sex marriage! The concept of liberty is an important one, but if it doesn't apply to all then it is not liberty.

Today David Silvester, being admirably if catastrophically consistent, did an interview with BBC Oxford radio where he called homosexuality a disease. The story continued to spread and on a day when Ukip should've been shouting from the rooftops after a fantastic opinion poll (for them if not for those of us who believe weather and climate are based on a little more than who has sex with who) they were instead being made to look terribly stupid.

Realising the game was up, Ukip reversed course and suspended him this afternoon. Unfortunately for them not only does this mean they'll have to weasel their way out of yesterday's statements (blaming it, I suspect, on Silvester not following party procedure or some such thing) but they will also have to deal with the social media fall out of their supporters getting very cross over the suspension and saying even more ridiculous things.

The problem for Ukip is that, to the vast majority of sensible people (even those who oppose much of the LGBT rights agenda), their candidates are often seen as being a bit out of touch and very offensive. But if they sack them or punish them in anyway they risk alienating their core support who quite obviously agree with them!

This is evident in Ukip's very poorly articulated policy on same-sex marriage. It wants to be all things to all people, but manages only to be an absolute mess. See here and here.

They are stuck between a rock and a hard place and unfortunately the rock keeps bashing against them. Just see this latest story reporting a Ukipper's dislike of "gays, Catholics and Communists" in Glasgow.

They've hitched their tent on religious freedom. There is no dishonour in that. But they forgot to set their own beliefs clearly enough to avoid being tarnished by every nasty comment uttered by one of their members. This was a rookie error, and I wonder just how many other Ukip policies are as ill-thought out and ill-considered as this.

Worryingly nearly 2 people in every 10 currently state they'll vote for them. Then again far more believe in ghosts and UFOs in this country so perhaps that sort of number was inevitable.
20 Jan 09:10

Lord Bonkers' Diary: The ALDE Congress at Canary Wharf

by Jonathan Calder
Friday

To Canary Wharf – a visible reminder of how central coal once was to our economy. For it was here that the unfortunate birds bound for the mines were landed after their long voyage from the balmy Atlantic isles after which they were named. The warehouses have long since been converted into offices and it is here that the ALDE Congress is being held.

I trust my opening address hits the right note:
“It gives me great pleasure to welcome over 900 Liberals from across the EU and beyond here to Canary Wharf. The European Liberal family includes three current prime ministers, while over a quarter of European Commissioners are Liberals. Liberal parties are in government in 16 different European countries, as well as being the third largest political group in the European Parliament. This family is a truly formidable fighting force – and we British Liberal Democrats benefit massively from being part of it. A word to the wise. Don’t fall asleep outside the building or Clegg will have you deported.”
Lord Bonkers was Liberal MP for Rutland South-West 1906-10.

Previously in Lord Bonkers' Diary
18 Jan 23:23

Fable #1: Mensch and the Other Kind of Mensch

by Lawrence
This is from 1942. And yet somehow, World War Two managed to last another three years.
In 1899, the radical French journalist Georges Clemenceau summoned the Gods of the Twentieth Century by mistake.

His newspaper had exposed the Dreyfus Affair, which saw the military frame a Jewish army captain for a crime of treason committed by a decidedly non-Jewish major. (The real traitor was called Esterhazy, a name John le Carré later used as a decoy.) This might sound like a typical example of nineteenth-century injustice / race-baiting, if it weren't for the repercussions, most particularly its role in inspiring Jewish writer Theodor Herzl to make the defining argument for modern Zionism. But during Clemenceau's war against antisemitic, pro-establishment French nationalism, he praised both the whistle-blowing of intelligence officer George Picquart and the campaigning of Dreyfus' brother, declaring: "All the world knows that Colonel Picquart is a hero. But if Colonel Picquart is a hero, Mathieu Dreyfus is a super-hero!"

The words have been spoken. They can't be un-spoken.

In the same era, anti-Jewish movements in Eastern and Northern Europe were causing mass-migrations to the US. By the 1930s, the children of two typical Jewish immigrant families were living in Ohio. With the world of their ancestors gone, they'd been raised to exploit every talent they had while adopting a mild-mannered facade of all-American Protestantism. So it was that Siegel and Shuster created Superman, who's now been "passing" as one of the goyim for over 75 years. Much has been written on the primal Jewishness of Clark Kent, and the ongoing Jewishness of comic-books in general (Stan Lieber became Stan Lee, and don't pretend Peter Parker would've been so angsty if he hadn't been devised by someone with Jewish parents). Inevitably, many have noted the irony of "Übermensch" being co-opted by - shall we say - the sort of people who were responsible for the pogroms in the first place. However...

...we might, symbolically, assume that Clemenceau made his comment at the exact moment Krypton exploded. And that this is why superheroes ended up being attracted to our planet rather than any other.
18 Jan 23:23

Outside the Government: Enemy of the Bane

by noreply@blogger.com (Philip Sandifer)
It’s December 1st, 2008. Take That are at number one with “Greatest Day,” and are unseated a week later by Leona Lewis’s “Run.” Britney Spears, Katy Perry, Akon, and Kings of Leon also chart. In news, Barack Obama announces more of his cabinet, three people die in the course of shopping for Black Friday, Russia and the Ukraine get into a tiff about natural gas supplies, and the legendarily wretched Lapland New Forest, a Christmas-themed park so awful that its management was jailed, both opened and closed in Hampshire.

Rather less wretched, and on television, is Enemy of the Bane, a story designed to work on two levels simultaneously. On one level it’s the structural trick Davies has been using literally since the dawn of his television career - the villain from one part of the season is shown at the eleventh hour to be working with another major villain. This time it’s a return of the titular Bane mixed with Kaagh from The Last Sontaran. And the story’s topic is clear enough - it’s a story about adoption again, and about the legitimacy of Sarah Jane’s status as Luke’s mother. And, like most of The Sarah Jane Adventures, it gets the notes right and provides a fairly touching story about what a “real mother” is, deciding that motherhood is about actions, not biology. All very nice.

But as part of the “big epic finale,” this was always slated to be a Doctor Who crossover. The plan was to have Martha, since of course there was still a show she’d not appeared in yet. Unfortunately (for Davies, at least), Freema Agyeman got poached by Chris Chibnall when he jumped over to do Law and Order UK, leaving a hole in the story that Davies and company eventually filled by inviting Nicholas Courtney to reprise the role of Sir Alistair Gordon Lethbridge-Stewart, more conventionally known as the Brigadier.

For a project of this sort, then, there can be no other way to meaningfully approach this story. Never mind that the Brigadier is a relatively minor character in this story - a guest appearance with only a handful of significant interventions who spends most of his time standing in the background of scenes. This is the final appearance of the Brigadier. The Sarah Jane Adventures has an elegiac tone at the best of times due to its strange dual nature as a late career revival for Lis Sladen and the last work she ever did. Adding the last appearance of Nicholas Courtney to it feels borderline funereal.

And it’s easy to read the episode in this context. The trouble with endings is that they often come at a point when things are right to pass. From Verity Lambert’s departure from Doctor Who on, we have seen few endings in which things are cut down in their prime. Even when the endings have come through tragedy, it has often been a case of an undignified end that still comes near the right moment. Roger Delgado’s final scene as the Master is a crap sendoff, but the character was well past the point where he worked well. Robert Holmes’s death and the unfinished finale of Trial of a Time Lord is a terribly sad story, but the overall takeaway of that season is nevertheless that under Nathan-Turner and Saward the series had become so spun around that not even a writer of Holmes’s skill could salvage it.

And likewise, the truth is that Nicholas Courtney is visibly an old and increasingly frail man here. His marginalization within the story has clear reasons. Effort is taken to keep him from having to stand too much. Scenes where he’d have to gurn and fall over are edited so that he’s never quite in shot. It’s little things, but it’s not surprising, based on this, that he couldn’t make an appearance a year later to do The Wedding of Sarah Jane Smith, nor that we are looking at a man two years from death. It is not the jarring wrongness of, say, William Hartnell in The Three Doctors, but rather something like the quiet and dignified fading of a lion that suffuses those late Johnny Cash albums under the American Recordings banner. The cliche would be to describe Courtney as “undimmed” here. No; the truth is that he is dimmed, but that even in the softer light of old age his features are unmistakable. Perhaps even all the more beautiful for it. It is wonderful to see him again, but it is the wonder of a visit to the bedside of an ailing loved one. Even if one does not know it to be the last time going in, one is aware that one of these times will be. 

One wishes, perhaps, that it had been a different story given this. That we know about the dying of the light makes all the business about Luke and the Bane seem strangely superficial. The Sarah Jane Adventures can do those things any day. Often, it does, and does them well. But here they feel out of place - like jarring distractions from what is in hindsight the real heart of this story. In many ways one is glad for The Wedding of River Song, with its quietly beautiful and fitting scene in which the Brigadier is allowed to die of old age, in a nursing home, much as Nicholas Courtney himself ultimately did. 

In Nicholas Courtney’s previous “proper” appearance, Battlefield, I suggested that the story would have been better served had the Brigadier died saving the Earth there, which Adam Riggio correctly pointed out was nonsense on toast, as allowing the Brigadier to have the end the Doctor wished for him - to die in bed - was far more appropriate for the sort of hero the Brigadier was. And is. And yet if we are going to have a character who winds his way through decades of Doctor Who, appearing with Doctor after Doctor, one is not unjustified in wishing he would get a finale. A story that is about him, as opposed to one in which he is another part of a buildup to someone else’s epic. 

All of which is to say that the story Enemy of the Bane has become through the accidents of history is, in many ways, a more powerful one than the one it set out to be. The dying of the light is worth beholding in all its awful, silent majesty. And this story is what we have - the point at which we say goodbye. Being as the farewell exists in the real world and not in the realm of narrative tidiness, we are forced to face it as real people do, not with carefully scripted glory. Death is not an event but an absence: a breath not taken, a returning story not made. A hasty farewell edited into a story that’s not about its most important scene.

But if there is a thing that TARDIS Eruditorum is good for, it is surely the fact that the past can be revisited with narrative clarity. And so let’s tell a different story. Or a story at all, instead of an awful jumble of causalities. Let us note the car that pulls away at the end, bearing within it the most constant of Doctor Who characters. Designed first as one of many suspects in a base under siege, and brought back for no reason other than that Douglas Camfield happened to enjoy the actor, the Brigadier, once he became the Brigadier - the definite article, you might say - was defined by exactly that: a constancy. He was a comedic character, born of the great tradition of drawing comedy from a sane man in a completely mad world. A straight-laced military man defined by his absolute and total unflappability, he was a needed side character for the Pertwee era.

But the Pertwee era, as we saw at the time, was an oddity for Doctor Who - a case of the show being taken as far in a given direction as it was possible for it to go while remaining Doctor Who. The Brigadier was wonderful within it, but he was very much made for a purpose. He is an artifact of an era when the show was, if not going against its underlying moral principle, at least exploring an edge case: the avatar of alchemical mercury working for the military. 

And so it is fitting that he be a character defined by his persistent returns. In Terror of the Zygons, in Mawdryn Undead, in The Five Doctors, in Battlefield, and here, yes, but also in a bevy of Big Finish audios, in both the Virgin and BBC book lines. He’s a character who, across all of Doctor Who, loves, loses, ages, grows young again, and, most importantly, lives on. The sixth decade of the series’ life shall be the first that he doesn’t appear in. And even then, given that 2013 brought a Third Doctor novel featuring him, this cannot be entirely ruled out. Even if he doesn’t appear in anything for the next ten years, his legacy is ensured via Kate Stewart. Paul Cornell suggests the way to understand the Brigadier is as the Doctor’s best friend. But this isn’t the truth; that’s Sarah Jane, and even Cornell admits it in later work. No, the way to understand the Brigadier is not through his friendship with the Doctor. It is this:

Through fifty years of Doctor Who, he does not change. He is as steadfast as he was when he became the definite article. And yet he always works. He works as the sane man in a Troughton story. He works against Pertwee. He works to introduce the madman Fourth Doctor, as a symbol of nostalgia for the fifth, and as a weary solder in Battlefield. He can be the good part in a rubbish story like Minuet in Hell, he works. And even here, as a shoehorned in guest appearance in Enemy of the Bane, he works. He is a character from the most outlying era of Doctor Who, and yet he works in every era, with every Doctor. He is the proof that Doctor Who, for all its changes and reinventions, remains a coherent thing. It must, as the Brigadier always works within it.

In this regard, a final story is perhaps the wrong choice anyway. A character who never changes is not well-suited by a story about the inevitability of change. Not even the Brigadier can stave off death. He dims and fades, as all things do. But that’s the only reason he has to: because it’s what things do. One day, they’re not there anymore. In the end, that’s the only sort of change the Brigadier ever could go through - the only one that would ever make sense. He waves goodbye, drives off, and that’s the end. Life goes on, except for those for whom it doesn’t. The world keeps turning.


But this is a story. And stories need not be true. We need only avoid being false. The world keeps turning, yes. Constantly. But here, at least, we know to whom its constancy stands tribute. 
18 Jan 22:38

Tom Winsor is a lot more worrying than David Silvester

by Jonathan Calder
There has, rightly, been widespread derision, for the UKIP town councillor David Silvester and his suggestion that the recent floods have been sent by God because parliament has brought in equal marriage.

But his are not the silliest or the most worrying words I have read today.

Step forward Tom Winsor, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary.

Here he is speaking to The Times (and quoted in the Guardian):
"There are cities in the Midlands where the police never go because they are never called. They never hear of any trouble because the community deals with that on its own ... They just have their own form of community justice."
There are cities in the Midlands where the police never go because they are never called? Really?

The Guardian goes to quote a more limited claim that could conceivably be true:
Winsor said some chief constables receive "close to zero" calls from some areas, and that police are not afraid to go to such areas, but that they do not know what is going on as communities do not tell them. 
He said: "They don't know what injustices are being perpetrated ... It's almost a closed book because we can't go there so don't know. It could be anything from low-level crime right up to murder."
However, the Guardian goes on to quote the chief constable of the West Midlands as flatly denying this.

Still, let Winsor have his say. Where are these communities?

Winsor says:
"There are some communities born under other skies who will not involve police at all," he told the Times. "I am reluctant to name the communities in question but there are communities from other cultures who would prefer to police themselves.
Leave aside the silly, saloon bar racism of "communities born under other skies": what worries me about Winsor is simple competence. How can someone with such an absurd view of the world cope with an important job?

Let's appoint someone sensible in his place and allow Winsor to find a post more suited to his talents.

My first thought is that he could be a UKIP town councillor.
18 Jan 00:46

Ship's Log, Supplemental: A Fragment Out of Time

by noreply@blogger.com (Josh Marsfelder)
Slash fiction is a thread that's been with us for quite some time already, and it's been with Star Trek arguably since as early as “Where No Man Has Gone Before”. Although certain hardcore fans might not like to admit it, it is unquestionably one of the franchise's most defining and signature motifs: Although slash has existed for pretty much as long as people have been telling stories, the current manifestation of it, the interaction it has with late-20th and early-21st century fan culture, and thus the way it is commonly conceptualized today, can be directly traced back to Star Trek.

There are any number of possible opportunities to discuss slash over the course of the franchise's history, but the one that seems to most appropriate is here, with the first documented piece of Star Trek-inspired slash fiction, Diane Marchant's “A Fragment Out of Time” (Page 1, Page 2), dating to 1974. Marchant submitted it to one of the first (and at the time only) Star Trek zines targeted expressly towards adults, a publication somewhat wonderfully titled Grup. Given the zine's comparatively small audience and interviews she's given after the fact, Marchant never expected it to be the bombshell it ended up becoming.

However I think she really needn't be ashamed, because the piece itself is, perhaps contrary to what one might expect, really quite tame and laudably well-written, describing a night of passionate lovemaking between two parties of whom great care is taken to speak in vagaries (though an accompanying illustration, not to mention the fact it was published in a Star Trek zine, sort of makes it obvious who the two paramours are supposed to be). And “lovemaking” really is the proper term: Marchant is very clearly interested in the intimacy and tenderness shared by her protagonists, and the gentle, poetic tone that permeates the entire piece reflects this. Honestly, as far as slash fiction goes, or really erotica in general, you could do considerably worse for yourself than this.

Like so much fanfiction of its era, Marchant wrote “A Fragment Our of Time” largely as an experiment. However, she also always maintained that she didn't come up with the idea of shipping Kirk and Spock herself, she was merely responding to what she felt was blatant subtext in the original Star Trek and that everyone who watched the show recognised and acknowledged to one degree or another, regardless of whether or not they actually admitted it. Marchant was adamant that the only thing she contributed to the history of Star Trek and the broader fan culture was the first work that was bold enough to put it into words, and I'm more than reasonably convinced she was right.

There was, of course, (and still is, to some extent) some manner of controversy over this opinion. The popular consensus for what happened next (I mean as much as there can be consensus about something as understudied and undervalued as fanfiction) is that “A Fragment Out of Time” caused a great schism amongst Star Trek fans and a firestorm of a debate about how proper the fic itself was and whether Marchant's argument was convincing or not. It would be altogether too easy for me to draw the line between, well, not necessarily fanboys and fangirls, but let's say patriarchal proto-nerd culture and feminist fandom, but it's not quite as simple as that. Remember the vast majority of the invested parties here are still women, including some of Marchant's staunchest critics, like one Connie Faddis, who penned an extremely negative review of “A Fragment Out of Time” and who would go on to be a pioneering figure in the Kirk/Spock scene herself.

But perhaps the most damning evidence that slash fiction didn't cause a huge rift in Star Trek fandom circa 1974 or emerge with the uncomfortable connotations it maybe has nowadays comes from our friend Paula Smith. When questioned about her views on erotic Star Trek stories (or if you prefer straight-up Star Trek pornography) at a convention, Smith gave this sparkling reply (emphasis hers):

“I agree that ST pornography is a lousy thing -- it is so badly written. In search for titillating themes, good or even credible characterization is ignored, and plots degenerate to the simplest push-push gimmickry. A lousy Get-Together story is worse than a lousy Mary-Sue story, because the reader doesn't expect a Mary-Sue necessarily to be any good. If it is uneven, juvenile, or just plain silly, that is typical, and the reader is not disappointed. But when a reader takes up a story on an adult theme, she expects an adult treatment, or ought to. A simpering, or brutal treatment of sex is evil in a most fundamental sense, because such trivializes and degrades our greatest humanity -- love. But sex, and sexuality, per se are not dirty and disgusting.”

Furthermore, when asked specifically about slash during her tenure as editor of the zine S and H when it was at its absolute peak as a debate topic, Smith responded, at once guarded, cheekily and triumphantly

“Some folks are hobbits: they need to be aware there are wider vistas than that of Bag End. Some are wizards: they must take care not to strike and blast as forcibly as they feel like, because there is always some fuzz-footed clown out there just itching to swipe yer Ring. The most useful thing anyone can learn is when to shut up. Like now.”

which I think is just hilarious, as she has documented Starsky and Hutch BDSM slash fanfic to her name.

So if slash is something Star Trek fandom at large circa 1974 seems on-the-whole comfortable with and the only real new ground Marchant is breaking is putting everyone's unspoken assumptions into textual form, the question then becomes, what was it about the original Star Trek that made it so easy for widespread and near-universal slashing to happen to the point a significant majority of fans seemingly took it for granted? We briefly talked about this back in the post on “And The Children Shall Lead”, but, to elaborate, Star Trek in general, though particularly the original series, exists at a unique junction of events and factors that make the evolution of slash an almost predictably logical outcome in retrospect. We've discussed at length one of the primary reasons why, which is that Star Trek was, even amongst the notoriously puritanical climate of US television, heavily sexually repressed and confused.

Gene Roddenberry never did quite manage to get a handle on how to handle writing women and approaching gender roles, even though he does get considerably better at it come Star Trek: The Next Generation. The closest he's gotten so far has been “Turnabout Intruder”, which was still ludicrously problematic and the fact it worked to the extent it did when it did was primarily due to William Shatner and Sandra Smith. Her employing Margaret Armen aside, D.C. Fontana gets it, though she prefers to demonstrate her feminism in far more subtle ways that work within the framework Star Trek already established for itself.

And yet Star Trek has proven to be wildly popular with women-So much so that literally none of the fan literature and history I've been able to dig up about this era even mentions the fact that men probably watched the show too, unless you count the most likely at-least-partially staged “Save Star Trek!” campaign and its strong technoscience undertones. This is self-evidently because, at least on the surface, Star Trek claims to envision a world where differences between genders no longer matter. That alone is an incredibly powerful declaration, and, in my opinion, may be the single most important thing about the entire franchise.

But even aside from its embrace of feminism (as tentative and clunky as it may often be), Star Trek has always been quite sexy and sexual, and I don't mean because the women wore miniskirts in the 1960s and 1970s and there are a lot of one-off alien ladies. Spock is simply way too easy to read this way, I mean “Amok Time” alone practically demands it. He's a very sexually repressed and conflicted character, and whether or not Roddenberry meant for his inner struggle between logic and sensuality to be a metaphor for that, it works too well to ignore (although it's also worth remembering D.C. Fontana has attempted to correct this not once, but twice: First in “Journey to Babel” and then, more blatantly and effectively, in “Yesteryear”). Either way, because of this conflict and repression, it's especially easy to see Spock as in some sense a closeted character, as the closet is all about keeping up appearances that are really a facade to disguise the way you truly view yourself.

Then there's Kirk, or perhaps I should say William Shatner. Kirk as written, at least early on, is flatly not terribly interesting. He's a generic leading man. But Shatner, being firstly an extremely talented theatre actor and secondly someone who immediately recognised how overstuffed and pretentious Roddenberry had made Star Trek, from the very beginning set about trying to knock the show down a few pegs and get it to loosen up. So Shatner deliberately overacts, playing Kirk not at all straight, but as a kind of subtly exaggerated caricature. Subtly exaggerated caricature, or in other words “playing a role and getting it ever-so-slightly-wrong”, is also something that is sometimes associated with gay male culture because, as best I understand it, calling attention to one's own artifice was something that, at least at one time, could be used as a kind of secret language with which members of an underground and oppressed culture could communicate with each other (in fact, the connection between gay male culture and theatrical performativity may even be where get “straight” a synonym for heterosexual).

Now this is not at all to suggest Shatner or Nimoy were playing their characters gay per se (although if I recall correctly there was a point I think in the third season of the original series where both actors have gone on record basically admitting they started to do precisely this and were stunned it took people decades to figure it out. I mean it sure is hard to read at least “And The Children Shall Lead”, “Spock's Brain” and “Turnabout Intruder” any other way), it's just that the way Nimoy wound up conceiving of Spock and the way Shatner played Kirk ended up paralleling very nicely with things that were also considered part of gay male culture at one point. That aside, another reason it became so easy to ship Kirk and Spock was because, well, they were really the only characters who were allowed to express their emotions to one another.

The primary reason for this was network standards and practices. Ostensibly the leading man, Kirk wasn't allowed to actually become emotionally intimate with any women (even Janice Rand, who was originally supposed to be Kirk's closest confidant) as there could be absolutely no implication of anything untoward going on off-camera, because this was still an era where sex was still largely seen as obscene by at least the people paying the salaries of the cast and crew. This is the real reason Kirk had to be “married to the ship and the job”, although some of that may have come from Roddenberry too (though I doubt too much of it, given his relationship with Majel Barrett). This is also why so many of the female guest stars seemed disposable and interchangeable because, well, they were. This meant that if the show wanted to have any actual character moments in between the stupid fight scenes, they had to be between the supposedly very heterosexual and virile close friends. Of course, given the way Nimoy and Shatner played their characters, this was not entirely successful in dissuading assumptions about the crew getting busy with each other in their off-hours.

So we have two characters who are built out of theatrical tropes that were also associated with at least a part of gay male culture at one point and the only people they can be emotional, honest and intimate with is each other. Kirk said she was closer to Spock than anyone else in the universe in “Turnabout Intruder” for a reason, because, from a narrative standpoint, that's literally, actually the case. That's the exact logic the show works by. I mean, you do the math: How do you think fans were going to read that? Believe it or not, they tend to be a rather savvy bunch. Savvier, I daresay, then studio and network executives. But that said, there's another side to this: In spite of all the overtures we can make to gay male culture, slash fiction remains if not the exclusive domain of, at least very strongly associated with, straight women.

It is an unspoken, though widely held, belief in the pop consciousness that straight women are overwhelmingly interested in gay male erotica. That's not to say gay men don't indulge in it themselves, but so do straight women, and enthusiastically so. And the thing about a lot of slash, including “A Fragment Out of Time”, is that it is, counterintuitively, actually very strongly heteronormative, or at least heterosexual and heteroerotc. There was a Tumblr post making the rounds awhile back as of this writing that summarised the phenomenon quite well: The author made the point that the vast majority of the most famous and beloved slash pairings consisted of a light-haired, gregarious, outgoing “badass” character and a quieter, more reserved dark-haired character who frequently plays the support role to his partner. Most recently, you can see this manifest in Dean Winchester and Castiel in Supernatural and Merlin and Arthur in the 2005 BBC Merlin, and in fact it seems to have become so ubiquitous it seems to have been a deliberate casting choice on the part of the latter show specifically to encourage the slashers. Others, like Steven Moffat and Mark Gatiss' Sherlock and Weda's The Hobbit trilogy, seem to invert and play with this archetype for a variety of reasons. The author then goes on to trace this trend all the way back to what's seen as the pioneering, archetypical slash pairing: Kirk and Spock.

Now, this makes going back and re-reading “A Fragment Out of Time” interesting, because Kirk is very clearly portrayed as the dominant, “masculine” sexual partner, and Spock the submissive, “feminine” one, as it's his reactions that are depicted in the most flowery and voyeuristic detail. Even if you extrapolate this out to non-sexual slash, this pattern holds: There always tends to be an energetic “masculine” half of the pairing and a reserved, demure, supportive, “feminine” half. The whole idea of dominant and submissive power structures in sexual relationships, and the further conflation of this with “male” and “female” poles is extremely heteronormative. Yes, Western society is *so* patriarchal and misogynistic that even a power structure this heteronormative is paradoxically only acceptable if it's shown being acted out by two gay men because it conveniently cuts the bothersome woman out of the picture.

Now this is not to say that slash isn't just as much about storytelling as it is sexuality: After a point, it just starts to make strong narrative sense to ship Kirk and Spock given a lot of the textual evidence on display and the inarguably talented writing pool in the K/S scene were right to point that out in my view. Even Marchant herself recognised this. But I do think a portion of the appeal of slash, at least as far as I can tell, lies within the very traditionally and stereotypical Western heterosexual (albeit traditionally stereotypically Western heterosexual female) fantasy of one person coming in and, through doting support, rehabilitating and healing another, or at least being swept up by a powerful masculine force. It's the exact same reason Twilight was so wildly successful, as this is precisely the way Bella and Edward's relationship worked. Slash isn't so much GLBTQ detournement as much as it is detournement by straight cis women who are trying to find ways to be emotionally validated in an overwhelmingly patriarchal culture whose media artefacts have an unsettling tendency to pretend they don't exist.

This is not, of course, to dismiss slash as necessarily retrograde. I think it serves a very important purpose and as long as Westernism continues to hold such backwards and convoluted attitudes towards gender and sexuality, and so long as Westernism continues to be the dominant intellectual framework for popular discourse, stuff like slash is bound to crop up. I'm just not entirely convinced it's quite as radically queer as I sometimes see it made out to be. It's just like what we learned in “Amok Time”: Everyone has a sexual side (even if for some that sexual side is “null and void”), and trying to pretend it doesn't exist is unhealthy and counterproductive. It's going to manifest somewhere in some form. And we live in a culture where any sexuality other than that of the stereotypically virile heterosexual cis male dom is considered shocking and forced underground. Maybe it's best, and fitting, for us to learn from and share with each other and use our shared marginal positionalities to recognise this.
17 Jan 12:06

What happens when an unstoppable PR force hits an NP-hard problem? The answer’s getting clearer

by Scott

Update (Jan. 23): Daniel Lidar, one of the authors of the “Defining and detecting…” paper, was kind enough to email me his reactions to this post.  While he thought the post was generally a “very nice summary” of their paper, he pointed out one important oversight in my discussion.  Ironically, this oversight arose from my desire to bend over backwards to be generous to D-Wave!  Specifically, I claimed that there were maybe ~10% of randomly-chosen 512-qubit problem instances on which the D-Wave Two slightly outperformed the simulated annealing solver (compared to ~75% where simulated annealing outperformed the D-Wave Two), while also listing several reasons (such as the minimum annealing time, and the lack of any characterization of the “good” instances) why that “speedup” is likely to be entirely an artifact.  I obtained the ~10% and ~75% figures by eyeballing Figure 7 in the paper, and looking at which quantiles were just above and just below the 100 line when N=512.

However, I neglected to mention that even the slight “speedup” on ~10% of instances, only appears when one looks at the “quantiles of ratio”: in other words, when one plots the probability distribution of [Simulated annealing time / D-Wave time] over all instances, and then looks at (say) the ~10% of the distribution that’s best for the D-Wave machine.  The slight speedup disappears when one looks at the “ratio of quantiles”: that is, when one (say) divides the amount of time that simulated annealing needs to solve its best 10% of instances, by the amount of time that the D-Wave machine needs to solve its best 10%.  And Rønnow et al. give arguments in their paper that ratio of quantiles is probably the more relevant performance comparison than quantiles of ratio.  (Incidentally, the slight speedup on a few instances also only appears for certain values of the parameter r, which controls how many possible settings there are for each coupling.  Apparently it appears for r=1, but disappears for r=3 and r=7—thereby heightening one’s suspicion that we’re dealing with an artifact of the minimum annealing time or something like that, rather than a genuine speedup.)

There’s one other important point in the paper that I didn’t mention: namely, all the ratios of simulated annealing time to D-Wave time are normalized by 512/N, where N is the number of spins in the instance being tested.  In this way, one eliminates the advantages of the D-Wave machine that come purely from its parallelism (which has nothing whatsoever to do with “quantumness,” and which could easily skew things in D-Wave’s favor if not controlled for), while still not penalizing the D-Wave machine in absolute terms.


A few days ago, a group of nine authors (Troels Rønnow, Zhihui Wang, Joshua Job, Sergio Boixo, Sergei Isakov, David Wecker, John Martinis, Daniel Lidar, and Matthias Troyer) released their long-awaited arXiv preprint Defining and detecting quantum speedup, which contains the most thorough performance analysis of the D-Wave devices to date, and which seems to me to set a new standard of care for any future analyses along these lines.  Notable aspects of the paper: it uses data from the 512-qubit machine (a previous comparison had been dismissed by D-Wave’s supporters because it studied the 128-qubit model only); it concentrates explicitly from the beginning on comparisons of scaling behavior between the D-Wave devices and comparable classical algorithms, rather than getting “sidetracked” by other issues; and it includes authors from both USC and Google’s Quantum AI Lab, two places that have made large investments in D-Wave’s machines and have every reason to want to see them succeed.

Let me quote the abstract in full:

The development of small-scale digital and analog quantum devices raises the question of how to fairly assess and compare the computational power of classical and quantum devices, and of how to detect quantum speedup. Here we show how to define and measure quantum speedup in various scenarios, and how to avoid pitfalls that might mask or fake quantum speedup. We illustrate our discussion with data from a randomized benchmark test on a D-Wave Two device with up to 503 qubits. Comparing the performance of the device on random spin glass instances with limited precision to simulated classical and quantum annealers, we find no evidence of quantum speedup when the entire data set is considered, and obtain inconclusive results when comparing subsets of instances on an instance-by-instance basis. Our results for one particular benchmark do not rule out the possibility of speedup for other classes of problems and illustrate that quantum speedup is elusive and can depend on the question posed.

Since the paper is exceedingly well-written, and since I have maybe an hour before I’m called back to baby duty, my inclination is simply to ask people to RTFP rather than writing yet another long blog post.  But maybe there are four points worth calling attention to:

  1. The paper finds, empirically, that the time needed to solve random size-N instances of the quadratic binary optimization (QUBO) problem on D-Wave’s Chimera constraint graph seems to scale like exp(c√N) for some constant c—and that this is true regardless of whether one attacks the problem using the D-Wave Two, quantum Monte Carlo (i.e., a classical algorithm that tries to mimic the native physics of the machine), or an optimized classical simulated annealing code.  Notably, exp(c√N) is just what one would have predicted from theoretical arguments based on treewidth; and the constant c doesn’t appear to be better for the D-Wave Two than for simulated annealing.
  2. The last sentence of the abstract (“Our results … do not rule out the possibility of speedup for other classes of problems”) is, of course, the reed on which D-Wave’s supporters will now have to hang their hopes.  But note that it’s unclear what experimental results could ever “rule out the possibility of speedup for other classes of problems.”  (No matter how many wrong predictions a psychic has made, the possibility remains that she’d be flawless at predicting the results of Croatian ping-pong tournaments…)  Furthermore, like with previous experiments, the instances tested all involved finding ground states for random coupling configurations of the D-Wave machine’s own architecture.  In other words, this was a set of instances where one might have thought, a priori, that the D-Wave machine would have an immense home-field advantage.  Thus, one really needs to look more closely, to see whether there’s any positive evidence for an asymptotic speedup by the D-Wave machine.
  3. Here, for D-Wave supporters, the biggest crumb the paper throws is that, if one considers only the ~10% of instances on which the D-Wave machine does best, then the machine does do slightly better on those instances than simulated annealing does.  (Conversely, simulated annealing does better than the D-Wave machine on the ~75% of instances on which it does best.)  Unfortunately, no one seems to know how to characterize the instances on which the D-Wave machine will do best: one just has to try it and see what happens!  And of course, it’s extremely rare that two heuristic algorithms will succeed or fail on exactly the same set of instances: it’s much more likely that their performances will be correlated, but imperfectly.  So it’s unclear, at least to me, whether this finding represents anything other than the “noise” that would inevitably occur even if one classical algorithm were pitted against another one.
  4. As the paper points out, there’s also a systematic effect that biases results in the D-Wave Two’s favor, if one isn’t careful.  Namely, the D-Wave Two has a minimum annealing time of 20 microseconds, which is often greater than the optimum annealing time, particularly for small instance sizes.  The effect of that is artificially to increase the D-Wave Two’s running time for small instances, and thereby make its scaling behavior look better than it really is.  The authors say they don’t know whether even the D-Wave Two’s apparent advantage for its “top 10% of instances” will persist after this effect is fully accounted for.

Those seeking something less technical might want to check out an excellent recent article in Inc. by Will Bourne, entitled “D-Wave’s dream machine” (“D-Wave thinks it has built the first commercial quantum computer.  Mother Nature has other ideas”).  Wisely, Bourne chose not to mention me at all in this piece.  Instead, he gradually builds a skeptical case almost entirely on quotes from people like Seth Lloyd and Daniel Lidar, who one might have thought would be more open to D-Wave’s claims.  Bourne’s piece illustrates that it is possible for the mainstream press to get the D-Wave story pretty much right, and that you don’t even need a physics background to do so: all you need is a willingness to commit journalism.

Oh.  I’d be remiss not to mention that, in the few days between the appearance of this paper and my having a chance to write this post, two other preprints of likely interest to the Shtetl-Optimized commentariat showed up on quant-ph.  The first, by a large list of authors mostly from D-Wave, is called Entanglement in a quantum annealing processor.  This paper presents evidence for a point that many skeptics (including me) had been willing to grant for some time: namely, that the states generated by the D-Wave machines contain some nonzero amount of entanglement.  (Note that, because of a technical property called “stoquasticity,” such entanglement is entirely compatible with the machines continuing to be efficiently simulable on a classical computer using Quantum Monte Carlo.)  While it doesn’t address the performance question at all, this paper seems like a perfectly fine piece of science.

From the opposite side of the (eigen)spectrum comes the latest preprint by QC skeptic Michel Dyakonov, entitled Prospects for quantum computing: Extremely doubtful.  Ironically, Dyakonov and D-Wave seem to agree completely about the irrelevance of fault-tolerance and other insights from quantum computing theory.  It’s just that D-Wave thinks QC can work even without the theoretical insights, whereas Dyakonov thinks that QC can’t work even with the insights.  Unless I missed it, there’s no new scientific content in Dyakonov’s article.  It’s basically a summary of some simple facts about QC and quantum fault-tolerance, accompanied by sneering asides about how complicated and implausible it all sounds, and how detached from reality the theorists are.

And as for the obvious comparisons to previous “complicated and implausible” technologies, like (say) classical computing, or heavier-than-air flight, or controlled nuclear fission?  Dyakonov says that such comparisons are invalid, because they ignore the many technologies proposed in previous eras that didn’t work.  What’s striking is how little he seems to care about why the previous technologies failed: was it because they violated clearly-articulated laws of physics?  Or because there turned out to be better ways to do the same things?  Or because the technologies were simply too hard, too expensive, or too far ahead of their time?  Supposing QC to be impossible, which of those is the reason for the impossibility?  Since we’re not asking about something “arbitrary” here (like teaching a donkey to read), but rather about the computational power of Nature itself, isn’t it of immense scientific interest to know the reason for QC’s impossibility?  How does Dyakonov propose to learn the reason, assuming he concedes that he doesn’t already know it?

(As I’ve said many times, I’d support even the experiments that D-Wave was doing, if D-Wave and its supporters would only call them for what they were: experiments.  Forays into the unknown.  Attempts to find out what happens when a particular speculative approach is thrown at NP-hard optimization problems.  It’s only when people obfuscate the results of those experiments, in order to claim something as “commercially useful” that quite obviously isn’t yet, that they leave the realm of science, and indeed walk straight into the eager jaws of skeptics like Dyakonov.)

Anyway, since we seem to have circled back to D-Wave, I’d like to end this post by announcing my second retirement as Chief D-Wave Skeptic.  The first time I retired, it was because I mistakenly thought that D-Wave had fundamentally changed, and would put science ahead of PR from that point forward.  (The truth seems to be that there were, and are, individuals at D-Wave committed to science, but others who remain PR-focused.)  This time, I’m retiring for a different reason: because scientists like the authors of the “Defining and detecting” preprint, and journalists like Will Bourne, are doing my job better than I ever did it.  If the D-Wave debate were the American Civil War, then my role would be that of the frothy-mouthed abolitionist pamphleteer: someone who repeats over and over points that are fundamentally true, but in a strident manner that serves only to alienate fence-sitters and allies.  As I played my ineffective broken record, the Wave Power simply moved from one triumph to another, expanding its reach to Google, NASA, Lockheed Martin, and beyond.  I must have looked like a lonely loon on the wrong side of history.

But today the situation is different.  Today Honest Abe and his generals (Honest Matthias and his coauthors?) are meeting the Wave Power on the battlefield of careful performance comparisons against Quantum Monte Carlo and simulated annealing.  And while the battles might continue all the way to 2000 qubits or beyond, the results so far are not looking great for the Wave Power.  The intractability of NP-complete problems—that which we useless, ivory-tower theorists had prophesied years ago, to much derision and laughter—would seem to be rearing its head.  So, now that the bombs are bursting and the spins decohering in midair, what is there for a gun-shy pampleteer like myself to do but sit back and watch it all play out?

Well, and maybe blog about it occasionally.  But not as “Chief Skeptic,” just as another interested observer.