BBC’s science and technology site has a new article about how much energy could be saved if we cut down on the energy used by lighting. (That’s lighting, by the way, not lightning.) http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/5128478.stm

This is clearly true and obviously a laudable aim. There was one argument that completely stumped me though.

“The carbon dioxide produced by generating all of this electricity amounts to 70% of global emissions from passenger vehicles, and is three times more than emissions from aviation, the IEA says.”

So cars and buses produce almost as much CO2 as lighting the entire planet and planes produce a third as much CO2? I think we can probably take for granted that a lot fewer than 33% of the world’s population make many plane journeys. Even those who do are unlikely to be racking up many frequent flyer miles. I also think it would be fair to say that a lot less than 70% of the global population have much access to a vehicle.

Surely this means that carbon emissions could be quickly reduced by targeting the small section of the global population whose use of planes (and passenger transport) must create more carbon per head per year than would be generated by lighting the average third world city?

More use of energy-saving lightbulbs would obviously be a good idea, but their cost would have to come down a lot before most people could see them as a viable alternative to the uber-cheap wasteful lightbulbs that we usually use. Limiting plane journeys would be easier, giving a quick savinng for little action.

Unless, of course, poor people don’t have the same global shout as the very wealthy (or even the moderately wealthy who can afford a week in Spain twice a year.) Which couldn’t be true.

The previous blog was based on a link from the Etrusia Protopage.  http://www.protopage.com/etrusia/

This has links to this blog, to Etrusia and to several news feeds.

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2006/06/are_virtual_u2_concerts_better.html – says “are virtual u2 converts better than the real thing?”

Probably.

Do they pay their article writers by the word? That is the only reason I can think for some of the worse abuse of the English language I have seen in print for quite a while.

The new layout of .net has split the old “web designer” sections and now you have technique/* sections (obviously trying to increase the web-feel for the style). These come in different forms ranging from what appears to be CSS for the retarded to “pro_tips.”

Most of these are fairly well written. The new style of the magazine appears to have improved the writing style of some of the feature writers. There is definitely a less patronising tone being used – especially in the “beginners guides.” (I will not mention the errors for now…). When they are talking about the more technical aspects, the writers do very well and actually get their point across.

However (always a however), when given the chance to “reflect” on some aspect of design (which, as opposed to the coding, is where the magazine seems firmly heading) the writers can go for three paragraphs without actually saying anything. Every other page is crammed full of meaningless prose which looks like it is there for a joke. Words like “leverage” are abused to within an inch of their lives. When ever one analogy gets used (and often a tenuous one at best), there are normally another three or four thrown in for good measure. Dont even think about letting me start on the mixed metaphors… It is truly educational reading – if only for how a “clique” magazine can butcher the English language…..

As always, as soon as “Web 2.0” and “Agile” programming becomes the topic, no one actually knows what it means, so the writer has to make up words to fill the copy. Sentence after sentence saying the same (non-)thing.

One of my favourites:

Use abstracted code so that you can make changes quickly and easily. This almost goes without saying, but the key to developing in a flexible way is to make sure that you’re not building something that has no room for manoeuvre.

Fantastic – and that is one of the more readable ones…. The really painful ones are too much hassle to type in! When the write starts to wax lyrical about making sure all your staff take ownership of the agile development rather than viewing it as a job, you know it is going to be pure word soup.

Sadly, the Web Design “industry” is entirely to blame for all this. The seemingly constant desire for new “buzzwords” means web design has spawned a language of its own. Strangely, no one actually understands the words they throw around, so every article has to spend the first ten pages explaining what the author thinks the word means. If people would just use the language properly, instead of trying to blind people with word-bluff, this wouldnt be required. Agile is word in the English language. It has a meaning which pretty much every English speaker can work out. Using it to refer to software code is simply wrong. This is why page after page have to explain what it means.

Will the madness ever end?

Well, doesn’t time fly. It only seems like yesterday I “commented” on a new issue of .NET, yet here is another one. Last month I resisted the urge to rant on about the magazine – unfortunately I dont think I can do the same this time round. There are good and bad points, possibly one of the major good points is the fact that this month the magazine is actually inspiring enough to rant about.

Sadly, some raging lunatic at .NET has decided to go for a major overhaul of the magazine. The sections are renamed, the writing style has drastically changed (and not for the better in most cases) and the sequencing has been altered. Now, I appreciate people often reject change but this really is change for changes sake. I cant for the life of me think they consulted their customers before this re-design (I subscribe and they never asked me).

The old layout, while re-assuringly familiar, did need a change. However it needed a change for the better. It seems that at the moment, .NET has hired the crazy horse who designs Computer Arts and gone for the same look and feel. Sadly, this seriously diminishes the “uniqueness” that .NET used to have regards structure, content and style. Now the magazine looks a bit like a poor copy of an arty style magazine and, strange though this is to admit, it actually takes away from the “authority” the advice it gives carries.

Some bits of it are good – the letters are at the very start now for example. There seems to be more advertising, but I dont know if that is actually the case or an effect caused by the way every article seems to be surrounded by ads. One other positive thing – the crazy editor who oversaw all manner of bad advice, typos, misprints and other assorted lunacy is leaving now. (I can only assume she is moving to Computer Arts…).

Well, that is enough on the style – I will think about polite things to say about the articles and return to this topic.

Great programme on Channel 5 tonight. Current archaeology in Pompeii and Herculaneum.

Incredibly only a quarter of Herculaneum has been excavated. Fantastic things on this programme included wooden furniture, half-painted statues, half-painted frescos.

It also showed my favourite thing- the pavements and kerbs and stepping stones.

There was a fascinating trip down an incredibly sophisticated sewer system. They also looked at human excrement and various odds and ends using an electron microscope. There was a visit to a baker’s shop and they showed how the grain was ground. The oven was brilliant- just like the sort often used today to bake pizzas. There was even a loaf of Roman bread.

Catch the repeats or buy the dvd if they release it.

Genuinely a quick one today. Have you ever noticed when you google phrases like “AJAX tutorial,” you get MILLIONS of hits (and I mean over 12 million here). Happy days you may be tempted to think, however on investigation nearly all the hits are to pages with links of other sites – which in turn have lists of links and so on.

I am sure Mobius would have been proud of this….

Anyway, not wishing to be left out – here are some of the “cool” AJAX related links I have been looking at today. Some are better than others…

• http://www.ajaxtutorial.net/ (Not as good a tutorial site as you would think…)
• AJAX On Rails – Will the dreaded Rails framework ever stop!!!!!
• IBM Developer Tutorial – not too bad actually, worth checking out first.
• http://coldfusion.sys-con.com/read/138966.htm
• http://www.stromcode.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=18&mode=&order=0&thold=0
• http://www.ajaxprojects.com/ajax/tutorialdetails.php?itemid=12
• http://www.plasticshore.com/logfile/entry/legacy_483
• http://www.ajaxprojects.com/ajax/tutorialdetails.php?itemid=13
• http://www.robgonda.com/blog/projects/ajaxcfc/(AJAX and Cold Fusion)
• http://www.indiankey.com/cfajax/ (More CF/AJAX)

Some good links for first timers:

• http://prokata.com/ajax
• http://www.mgroves.com/blog_archive.php?blogID=57
• http://www.funwithjustin.com/ajax-toybox/
• http://www.ajaxprojects.com/ajax/tutorialdetails.php?itemid=10 (personal favourite)

If it helps – you can find a round up of “50 AJAX Toolkots and Frameworks” which is more interesting than it sounds at – http://www.maxkiesler.com/index.php/weblog/ comments/ round up of 50  ajax toolkits and frameworks/

Seriously, if you know of any better AJAX related links let me know!

There are some new articles on Etrusia’s Roman history site. http://romans.etrusia.co.uk/roman_pompeii.php is a brief introduction to Pompeii and Herculaneum, with links to some 30 year-old photographs of parts of Pompeii that may not all be accessible to a visitor today.

There is also a short article on Hadrian’s Wall, on the same principles – a basic background introduction to the Roman monument that stretches across the whole of the North of England, with many sites along the route which will interest visitors. http://romans.etrusia.co.uk/roman_hadrians_wall.php

More shameless plugging, I guess.

There is some good new material on the Anglo-Saxons on http://saxons.etrusia.co.uk/ which has just been remodelled and will be further extended in the near future. This would be a useful introduction to a little-known period in English history for senior school pupils following the national curriculum in History. It is also an interesting condensation of knowledge about the Saxons for anyone with an interest in British history.

Continuing the discussion about the book by Chris Smith and his co(ghost?) writer. Like the previous poster, I have not read it either, but since when has that stopped a reviewer? (I’ve read a review in the Guardian.)

Their premise appears to hang on a “big idea,” always a cause for suspicion, especially when one is trying to generalise about culture. There is a huge conceptual error in assuming that belief in a single god is in anyway associated with a commitment to solving problems logically (leaving aside the excellent point made in the previous blog that Christianity hardly has a monopoly on monotheism).

Didn’t the ancient Greeks invent all our categories of logic? How many gods did they have? Isn’t the Socratic method the basis of scientific and philosophical enquiry? Didn’t the Romans devise technical solutions to practical problems that are still used today? How many gods did they have? These examples do not even extend beyond “western” culture. If one also considers the scientific achievements of the ancient Chinese or Egyptians or any number of civilisations throughout history, it is clear that religious belief has little to do with development of practical science and technology.

Max Weber argued for a connection between religion and social development, in his 19th century work on the Protestant work ethic. He was arguing, however, that some elements of the Protestant world view led people to to reject external religious authority and value their own practical achievements in the real world. Very briefly, the Protestant religion supported the scientific and social development of industrialisation, whereas a Catholic world view was more closely associated with social stagnation because of its values of respect for authority and reward in the afterlife.

From this perspective, Weber was building an analysis of industrial society that could accomodate the role of ideas, as well as production and social organisation. There have been many more recent analyses of the interaction of social change and the realm of ideas and beliefs (e.g. Gramsci)

These issues are very complex and much of the writing is difficult to follow. However, none of it draws a simple line connecting belief and technology. Technology is a social creation. Its nature is inextricable from the social relations in which it is developed. Beliefs are also part of social relations. Hence there are interactions between belief systems and scientific and technological advances. However, a recognition that they are connected in various subtle ways does not support a simplistic assertion that belief A leads to technology B.

Reasonably short one (for now).

Todays issue of New Scientist (cover date 24 June 2006 for those who want to keep track) has an interesting editorial in the “Comment and Analysis” section. It was written by Mr Richard Kock (cited as being a Businessman and Author) and Chris Smith (Lord Smith of Finsbury), who is a former UK minister for culture. The thesis they put forward is described in full in “Suicide of the West.” (Book on the right here)

Now, without spoiling either the article or the book (as I havent read it, I cant see how I could spoil it though…) the crux of their entry in New Scientist seems to revolve around the west’s approach to technology.

The overall implication of this article is that from the middle ages onwards, (“sometime between 13th and 15th centuries” is the term used), Europe took the technological lead over the rest of the world and now the “West” has lost this lead. A lot of the article is reasonable and fairly well thought out. It is certainly undeniable that in the developed West, “science” is under attack from a variety of sources – creationism, mysticism, even sheer lunatics. One good point from the article in New Scientist is the comment that there appears to be more apparent belief in magic than at any time since the middle ages. (Although I’d like to see any one prove it…)

I can certainly agree that in a random selection of newspapers there is more about “mystical” properties of various stones, hats, bells etc than really makes sense in this enlightened age and when over 40% of the worlds last super power are creationists it is worrying.

However, this is where the logic and reasearch seem to depart. Mixed in with quite promising, insightful, study there are some bizarre commentary. In a nut shell, the authors of the article are making the point that the reason science advanced so well from the end of the middle ages to today is that people in the west (“Christians”) had an unshakeable belief in a single, all powerful God. They posit that this belief meant people also believed it was possible to determine the “true nature” of the universe, because this almost-human God must have created everything in a logical manner. Since the 1920s, the authors assert, this religious conviction has departed and science has “eaten away at its thought-foundations.”

As an example of the Why, the Christian-west overtook the other world cultures the authors point out the (ahem) Fact that this belief in a Single all powerful deity is unique to Christianity. This is used to explain the rapid advancement from about 1300 onwards. Well, obviously the followers of Judaism and Islam may have a few words to say about this. Sadly, this single error highlights a complete lack of any understanding. The authors have a reasonable comment to make (Developed world is madly turning away from science), however for some mad reason they base it on this. Islamic scholars were well ahead of the Europeans well into the Middle ages. Islam, for example, still maintains the scientific ethos as a core value – yet their advancement failed to keep pace with the west.

Sadly, the article in New Scientist doesnt go as far as a solution – although the implication is that it is tied into beliefs. Taking this as the Author’s end goal, it is quickly falsified by the Middle East. Sadly, there is no simple answer to the modern lack of scientific interest or understanding. It may have many roots, buried deep in different areas. It may simply be down to the sheer volume of information we expect everyone to know today (basic mathematic skills, for example, vastly outstrip even the most educated 2000 years ago), it may be down to cultural or religious direction. It may be down to all these things.

This article doesnt do much more than identify and already identified problem. As the authors own historical knowledge and research is woefully lacking, I dont hold much hope out for their “Insights.” Anyway – read the book and let me know what you think.

This is the longest day of the year in the Northern Hemisphere (and the shortest in the Southern Hemisphere). This is as good an excuse as any to go to visit megalithic sites. A few thousand people were at Stonehenge and smaller number at Avebury and, no doubt, people went to many sites around the UK and Europe. Some of these people are so engagingly and entertainingly eccentric that you want to capture them for your own private zoo. Most are just people with a developed sense of history.

It’s hard to quarrel with anything that gets people enjoying visiting prehistoric sites. The automatic association between the summer solstice and megalithic sites is sometimes a little doubtful though. Some sites appear to be better understood as midwinter sites, anyway. I just object to the way that practical considerations rarely enter into our thoughts about these sites. No one considers that they may have been used in any other way than the rituals we project onto their builders, thus distancing us from any sense of their builders as just like ourselves. Which inadvertently opening the conceptual gate for those who think the stones were levitated into place or dropped by aliens.

We happily believe that generations of people would do the enormous amounts of work needed to construct these monuments, just for the sight of the sun coming up in one location on one particular day of the year (if there are no clouds – which is rare in the UK). If this were the sole purpose of these constructions, I suspect a simple sundial would have sufficed.

One of my cavils is with the idea of ceremonies being held on a specific day (the Solstice) and of people having to travel miles to attend them.

We are asked to contemplate people with no clocks or calendars except the likes of Stonehenge. So how do they know they are leaving on the right day, for a journey that may take weeks, until they get there?

You can only solve this problem by imagining a scenario where the religious leaders have to check the sun’s alignment everyday as it approaches midsummer, then have to send out messages to all their potential congregation a couple of weeks or so before the Solstice to tell them the time is close. Otherwise, everyone would have to have their own mini solstice clocks so they could tell when it was 5 to midsummer and start planning their journey.

Yes, this blog is ridiculous. It’s just a challenge to accepting whatever the latest archaeological fashion says is the purpose of these awe-inspiring creations.

Well, time for some more rants. It seems that pretty much everywhere I have been looking over the last month, from the arrival of .NET magazine through to searching web news sites, has been going on about how great it is that we can get all our software online as a web app instead of having to buy and install it ourselves.

For those with a memory span longer than a goldfish, you will remember this was the “next big thing” in the 1990s and fell flat on its face. However, with the widespread adoption of broadband and the advances in internet technology, the dream is now possible. For example, sites like 30boxes.com, ajaxWrite and all manner of google offerings are gaining popularity all the time.

I can see why the pundits are heralding this new wave of “next big things” (even if it is a second hand idea), as at first it does seem like a good idea. If one discounts the facts – such as dumb terminals are nothing new(30 years ago all “computers” linked into a mainframe which actually ran the software) people didnt like them and wanted their own computers – and accepts this is an old idea rebadged then there may be some reasons to go down this route.

For some, technophobic, customers there can be advantages to having all your software remotely hosted. The host can automate backups and upgrades and you can pay only for the things you use.Software manufacturers certainly like the idea, being able to keep selling you the same thing, over and over, is fantastic. It is like hiring a car instead of buying your own. No maintainence costs, no road taxes etc. Isnt that computer utopia?

Well, no. The same as hiring a car, you dont “own” anything. This is worse than it may first seem – given that the “ownership” of software is a very grey area.

Let me give you an example, you (CTO of XYZ Company) have decided to save costs and run all your company’s office-like applications on a web provider service. (Eg, ajaxWrite). Everything is great. You have saved a fortune and all the share holders are cheering. One day you log on to write a memo and the host is down. Instantly, you have lost your ability to work. Your office staff cant do anything but sit around. This can happen with an offline application, but generally you become responsible for taking protective measures to prevent it happening. Anyway, on with the example:

After the smoke has cleared, and the MD / bosses stopped trying to kill you, the descision is made to go with an expensive host which has a penalty clause in the contract. Great. Savings are down though, so people arent as happy as before, but still – this is all very Web 2.0 and the terminology has kept them quiet.

One day you come into work and there is a problem connecting to the internet. (ISP / Telco etc). The lines were eaten by a wild, rabit rat and wont be repaired for a week. All your office software – more importanly ALL YOUR DATA – is unavailable for that time. All those off site backups the host has made are worthless and the all high tech kit in your building is sitting silent.

More hell. The shareholders demand you get a leased line with even more penalty clauses. More costs. Now you are hardly making any savings (unless you previously bought new software at the drop of a hat). But at least everyone is happy and you are still “Web2.0ing.”

Another fateful day, you come into work and you web host gives you notice that due to demand, it is changing its T&C and limiting your bandwidth. In addition, because it has a virtual monopoly it is going to increase prices. Outraged you try to move to a different host, only to discover the data you have stored remotely has been stored in a proprietary format. After some furious debates the share holders accept this and allow the extra costs but demand you find a new host. Now you are on the same costs as previously.

The next hurdle appears when you discover all your data has become “intellectual property” of the host (not as far fetched as it sounds), and to make matters worse the host is being bought out by ABC company – your arch rivals. There is nothing you can do at this stage to regain control of your data. You chose to allow a third party complete and utter control over it and now will bear the consequences.

Ok – this is just a hypothetical story. But seriously, what real advantages are there to having all your data stored by an effectively unknown third party? It isnt safer – if you want to be safe, then ensure YOU are running proper security measures. 99% of people connected to the internet are less likely to get hacked than a large application service.

Bottom line – this isnt a new idea, not even an old idea whose time has come. It is stupidity all wrapped in a Web 2.0 cloak.

Just as an aside, I have been looking at changing the layout of a goodly number of the sites maintained by the web warriors at Why Dont You, and one of the things I googled was about getting rounded corners. For those who aren’t aware, this is almost the “holy grail” of current web design trends and is normally done through the excessive use of overlapped, css guided, images.

However, thanks to the mighty google, I came across this site – http://www.html.it/articoli/nifty/index.html – and it shows you how to do the trick with just plain old CSS. Excellent. Also useful is this site on colours: http://www.htmlgoodies.com/ tutorials/ colors/ article.php/ 3478961

I know it is almost heretical in todays society, but is too much choice a bad thing?

The Ubuntu 6.06 installation I am using to write this took about 20 minutes to install and set up. Today I went through the package manager and spent nearly 90 minutes finding packages to install. The choice of packages is almost endless (well it appears that way).

One of the wonderful things in Linux is the amount of software available – but is this always a good thing? Will productivity be improved when people spend a third of their day installing software they will probably never use?