Wednesday, August 29, 2007

the myth of the slow computer

do you know how fast a computer actually is?

that old 486 which says it's running at 66kHz... that actually means it's capable of executing 66,000 instructions PER SECOND.

so why in blue hell are we always waiting for the computer to stop hanging!?

what is going on behind that beguiling "rolling hills" wallpaper which windows xp likes to display?

i think i do believe that today's gigahertz processors ARE really capable of billion calculations per second. i think it's the PROGRAMMING which i'm not so sure about.

especially windows.

what a deceptively simple name! i wonder what kind of programming mess lies behind that. the jumbled code which takes on a life of its own by jumbling itself up each time the clueless user attempts to click something. haven't you ever wondered why we need to defrag the harddisks and why we need third-party registry clean-up apps?

your computer isn't slow. it's not trying to screw you over with blue screens of death. no... the computer is only as slow as the programming installed.

microsoft created the myth of the slow computer.

Saturday, August 04, 2007

playing guitar

i've a little resolution to make after listening to Corrinne May's fantabulous concert (i'm a fan now. awkwardly, but i'm a fan!):

i shall learn more guitar songs and especially hymns/p&w stuff so that i can be a better guitar player for my friends!

so if you have any song which you want me to play for you, please let me know k? i shall begin to build up a proper repertoire in earnest - on Corrinne's account =)

oh btw here's a shot of the concert i sneaked =P
Corrinne... you're a real inspiration. a drop of golden sunshine emanating Christ's boundless love in this loveless world. conquer this world in His name o superhero girl!

Friday, August 03, 2007

presumptions

this morning i tried to call ryan, hoping to check if i should go straight to the matric fair or not. he didn't pick up. the first thought that came to my mind was: he's a guy - why doesn't he pick up the phone? perhaps he's driving and still on the way? then isn't he quite late?

all those questions are examples of presumption - presumed assumptions. our eager-to-blame minds often accords blame to people even in the absence of concrete proof.

if someone's phone does not get through, would you say that that person had purposely switched his/er phone off? perhaps you might even take it more personally and say s/he is switching the phone off just to avoid your call! but really, without further information, it is just as likely that his/er phone simply died either due to a flat battery or poor reception. that phone might even have been lost, stolen or spoilt - less likely, but still probable given the lack of concrete evidence! why is it that we automatically take things personally?

let's say a friend is late. perhaps s/he's stuck in a jam. perhaps s/he's got a wardrobe malfunction. perhaps s/he's got to attend to some family matter first. there could be an infinite amount of perhapses, and yet, more often than not we find ourselves condemning that friend for purposefully choosing to be late so that we have to wait for him/er. some friend we are! instead of being worried for the late friend's well-being, we are content to simmer in our private anguish.

how about when a sibling says something hurtful? silent treatment. no more sharing. immediate retaliation. do we know in that instant whether s/he actually meant to hurt us? or was it a mere slip of the tongue? does it have to snowball into a cold war?

presumptions, presumptions. i'm very tempted to link such reflex think-the-worst mentality to that arduous political philosophy of realism, but that wouldn't be very fair since i won't be bothering to write a full essay here. indeed, if i made such a negative claim without proof or even argument, then i'm merely making yet another presumption!

so - difficult as it may be - let's try a different kind of presumption. the positive kind. next time a car overtakes you with a crazy manouvre, give that driver the benefit of the doubt - you'd be doing that too if your boss was gonna fire you for being late that time.

Wednesday, August 01, 2007

reductionism

reductionism - the idea of reducing large, complex situations into simplified, more understandable models - is one of the few philosophies which are truly multidisciplinary. reductionism is, in a sense, a significant cornerstone of fields as diverse as mathematics, literature, the sciences (both physical and social), philosophy, engineering, business, and history. i could give examples in each field, but let's just settle for these three: in math, long functions are reduced and simplified into equations - some of which then describe relations between natural phenomena via physics; in philosophy, much of logic is similarly reduced to equations, while "cause and effect" commonly becomes descriptive of any sequence of events; even in history, where attempts are made to understand an event from different perspectives so as to capture its complexity, most reports end up emphasising bite-size fact-nuggets, or else there may be no readers.

why does this "reductionism" fascinate me? i just watched part one of The Corporation (available for download at www.thecorporation.com) and throughout, i was reflecting on what a friend told me about doing business. you reduce a good concept to something which "the masses" can understand and appreciate, so that they would buy into it. initially it sounded somewhat logical, although some part of me felt uncomfortable with this proposition. it's true, isn't it? "the masses" can't be expected to think for themselves, can they? voluminous reports, no matter how meticulously done, would still never be able to capture the details of complexities in (especially) social circumstances - much less convey the most important messages to the client.

so what then are these "most important messages"? this is cynical, but in the business world, it's usually about how the presenter is competent, the proposition will definitely work, and both parties will make money. that scenario is presented many times over in The Corporation. one queasy point which is often left out in reductionist reports is this big word: externalities. now it doesn't necessarily always have to be negative, and yet since by definition externalities don't result in direct profit, they are usually left out even if they're positive - unless a spin can be put on it of course.

in our modern reductionist society, individuals no longer appreciate any form of complexity. in fact, some no longer consider the world complex to begin with! what with all the breakthroughs in every field telling us more than we can ever know or understand... haven't we already covered everything? or rather, isn't whatever externality being dealt with by someone else already? here, we see how reductionism, when misapplied, can easily result in evasion of responsibility. why should i bother with recycling? i'm not wasting much anyway. even if i do go the extra mile, someone else is bound to waste that mile for me. why think about the next generation and how they would suffer in a world parched by us? i'd be gone by then. i have enough worries for tomorrow as it is.

to admit, for the individual the above statements do hold some truth: recycling 10kg of paper isn't going to save even 1% of a tree. however, The Corporation showed me how such thinking could quickly blow out of proportion when it dominates a group of individuals - culminating in the perfectly amoral and profit-driven corporation of today. when a large company wastes resources, who is to blame? every individual within? even so, how do you stop these behemoths with their gigantic litigation departments?

reductionism has brought us much progress in science and technology. yet these multifarious progresses are not in themselves simple or one-dimensional - we cannot even begin to fathom how amazingly complex their impacts can be. however, this does not mean we completely ignore the externalities and reduce them away. in our list of priorities when making choices, each one of us must retain that awareness of others and pinpoint at least those externalities which are most harmful. the urban setting may alienate each individual to the point of mutual ignorance, but everything we do as individuals continues to impact society at large - reducibly or not.

when subjecting humanity to reductionism, pray do not let moral responsibility and empathy be reduced away. we can be simplified - but does that mean we are no longer complex? are we still human or mere "masses"...