The Sociology of Star Trek Part Two : Federation Utopia

The Sociology of Star Trek Part Two : Federation Utopia

In which I examine what makes the Federation such a darned nice place to live and how it came to be. Much longer than part one.

Last time I showed some examples where Trek warns of the dangers of technology. But most of the time the message is clearly and unequivocally pro-science and pro-technology, with that playing an enormously significant role in keeping paradise running. Perhaps the biggest key to this is the Federation's infinite resources.

Unlimited energy makes a complete mockery of modern economics. When you have a device that can produce enough energy to run the entire planet a hundred times over, what's the point in money ? You can give away all your possessions and easily create more, and you can do absolutely nothing to stop everyone else from getting what they want too. Behaving like a jerk offers none of the social advantages it does in today's society - there's nothing to be gained... competition for resources may actually become self-destructive. There's no point in wasting energy competing for things you could more easily get through collaboration - you just alienate people.

It's easy to be a saint in paradise.... technology is close to 100% reliable. A thousand irritating little chores we currently have to do have ended. Everyday technology does nothing except make life easier. It's nudge theory implemented on a grand scale.

Other species have the unlimited energy and resources of the Federation but behave very differently. These other species serve as a message that humanity and the other Federation members have got the balance just right : not too aggressive, not too passive; rational but passionate. The other species failure to find this harmonious middle ground indicates that there's more to this than simple technological development : there are social and political factors at work too. Only a combination of all three has led to the near-perfection that is the Federation.

The major political event that set humans on a course to utopia was First Contact, uniting disparate factions into one cohesive whole. The sociological factor was World War III, a nuclear holocaust that left 600 million dead. In this bleak era, humanity must have been at its most desperate for change. And into this darkest moment came Zefram Cochrane and his warp drive that brought knowledge of peaceful, space-faring civilisations that had survived their own brutal pasts.

The Federation may be much more tolerant than modern society, but it still has limits and laws. Most people share a common set of values. No-one goes on about racial supremacy, free speech, capital punishment, firearms regulations, or any of the other hundred-odd issues that get people on the internet so outraged today. Rather than this being due to toleration, it seems that most of these issues have been resolved to everyone's satisfaction. The political movement which began with First Contact succeeded more completely than any other political ideal in history.

So could a Trek-like Eden be realised at least on parts of Earth on a more useful timescale than the next few centuries ? We need technological, social, and political change. The technological aspect we can probably manage without anti-matter reactors. 3D printers are already having an impact, and while general-purpose robots are not yet a thing, progress is being made in that direction. Couple this with the decreasing cost of unlimited renewable energy, and something like the economic situation of Star Trek - albeit on a much smaller scale - begins to look at least plausible, if not necessarily very probable. If everything can be automated then the only currency becomes energy, and if energy is unlimited... then is the moneyless economy of the Federation really so ridiculous ?

But technology won't do jack without a socio-political change to determine how it's used. Can you imagine a world with infinite energy run by the Flat Earth society ? Or (urrrgh) a member of UKIP ? Can we manage the social and political developments without a massive world war and the arrival of the Vulcans ?

Perhaps - but even if we avoid war, the future won't be easy. Certain philosophies are simply going to have to be abandoned. Discrimination of all forms is something that desperately needs to die. No, I don't care if you think free speech is more important - it isn't. Society must in all things aspire to be a meritocracy.

There's a peculiar idea that democracy is great but government interference sucks. Or the reverse, that the good of the state is always more important than the individual. A bizarre and wrong-headed notion that taxation is theft. That healthcare, housing, and sanitation aren't basic human rights.That laws must be absolute. That freedom of speech and democracy are more important than anything else, even if they harm the entire populace. That everyone's opinion on every subject is for some reason worth listening to - not just on social media, but that freedom of the press should be sacrosanct no matter what. All these notions will have to go extinct, and a lot of people are going to be very unhappy about that.

What Some Nerd Thinks About Star Trek (II)

Last time I looked at how Star Trek is a work of sociological science fiction. Human and other Federation societies have achieved something of a utopia, with alien species illustrating what might have happened if we'd chosen the wrong path. Sometimes the aliens make wrong choices because they're stupid - that is, it could have happened to any society.

Native English speakers don't know how to communicate

Quite nice follow-up to yesterday's article about the EU negotiations being even more muddied than strictly necessary by linguistic conventions.

“A lot of native speakers are happy that English has become the world’s global language. They feel they don’t have to spend time learning another language,” says Chong. “But… often you have a boardroom full of people from different countries communicating in English and all understanding each other and then suddenly the American or Brit walks into the room and nobody can understand them.”

“The native English speaker… is the only one who might not feel the need to accommodate or adapt to the others,” she adds.

I do try and avoid British colloquialisms when speaking with non-native colleagues. But it does get frustrating if you've been an expat for a few years.

And then there’s cultural style, Blattner says. When a Brit reacts to a proposal by saying, “That’s interesting” a fellow Brit might recognise this as understatement for, “That’s rubbish.” But other nationalities would take the word “interesting” on face value, he says.

When a Brit says, "I'm not sure that..." they generally mean, "that was a really dumb thing you just said". Then again I have a Czech colleague who, frustratingly, never believes me if I say I'm not an expert in some specialist area. He thinks I'm being polite when I'm actually trying to say, "I have no idea what you're talking about, make it simpler".

That’s why Nerriere devised Globish — a distilled form of English, stripped down to 1,500 words and simple but standard grammar. “It’s not a language, it’s a tool,” he says. Since launching Globish in 2004 he’s sold more than 200,000 Globish text books in 18 languages.
http://www.bbc.com/capital/story/20161028-native-english-speakers-are-the-worlds-worst-communicators

The Brits don't pretend to say what they mean and expect everyone else does the same

Some interesting insights.

"Now girls," the teacher explained, "when someone offers you something to eat, and you want it, you say yes, not no." These well-brought-up young ladies would usually say: "No, I couldn't possibly" to that plate of biscuits the first time round, and wait to be persuaded before giving in with a gentle: "Oh, go on then."

This is all quite straightforward to Brits, and the subtext is clear. In Germany it's baffling.

Last year David Cameron tried to persuade German Chancellor Angela Merkel to let the UK have a special deal to opt out of free movement of people, while staying in the single market. She said no. And she meant, well, no. Not "no-but-ok-if-you-push-hard-enough-maybe-yes". Just no. But in the UK politicians and journalists are still asking the question: what does Merkel really think?

And amid all the talk of red lines and not revealing your hand, there is ongoing speculation about how to interpret the signals coming out of Berlin. In fact, it's all quite simple. Merkel means what she says. And German politicians are getting increasingly frustrated by London not seeming to understand this.

In the rough-and-tumble world of confrontational British politics, we're all used to hearing things which sound like one thing, but mean another. Politics needs to be exciting in the UK to keep voters and journalists interested. So rhetorical bluster and the odd showy, overblown promise, with a bit of backtracking later, is often forgiven, especially if you've managed a witty gag or two along the way.

Yes - although we're not used to say, promises being stuck on the side of a bus and driven up and down the country and then ignored. Or a blunt statement that tuition fees will be scrapped which is then ignored. We expect the government to at least be seen to be trying, unless it's very obvious that there's no way in hell the promise can be kept as advertised. It's a bit like the standard negotiating tactic of asking for more than you know you'll get so that a reasonable compromise can be reached. You wouldn't start off by stating the absolute worst you're prepared to accept, because that guarantees you'll get a lousy deal.

In Germany - where the tradition of consensual, coalition-building means co-operation and compromise are more highly valued than macho posturing - not saying what you mean is not forgiven. It's seen as dishonest, confused and ineffective.

Which is probably why coalition governments in Britain are lousy. Politics is already confused. Throw in yet another level of compromise and no-one has a clue what they're voting for and everyone hates it (well, most people, anyway).

In fact, that's the word that explains the whole point: you hear the German word "konsequent", which roughly translates as consistent, a lot here. And it's a highly prized virtue. It means you'll do what you say, and live by the consequences if you don't. Some might say we haven't seen much evidence of that in British politics recently.

Indeed. We expect a certain number of u-turns and inconsistencies. But not on this scale.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37799805

Review : Doctor Strange

No spoilers.

I'm not a fan of superhero movies in general but I did enjoy this one. It doesn't take itself too seriously and people seem to actually enjoy superpowers instead of drowning in their own angsty tears the whole time. Even Benedict Cumberbatch tones down the usual in-your-face arrogance. He's still... well, not all that nice, but nowhere near the level of assholery that defines Sherlock. Plus the man was practically born to wear a cape (the cape itself has some acting talent, which is unusual). He really should play a Time Lord at some point.

It's pretty well-paced film with a halfway interesting plot about mystical philosophy. But then I've always had a soft spot for movies in which scientists are forced to confront observations which break their view of reality into itty-bitty pieces... in this case literally. Special effects are like Inception on steroids. Lots and lots of steroids. What could have just been "a big glowy thing" instead becomes quite beautiful. There's some real creativity gone into depicting a fractured reality and spiritual dimensions. Think Inception+The Matrix+Dr Who.

I give this a totally solid 7/10, maybe pushing an 8. It's a very nice work of light entertainment. There's nothing groundbreaking here, but it's enjoyable from start to finish, never loses its humour, and is generally well executed in every regard. Its only real weakness is the main villain, who is introduced a bit too suddenly without sufficient explanation. He somewhat lacks any real sense of menace as a result, which would have been nice. But it doesn't really matter, and I'd rather something fun than yet another "oh woe is me, my only superpower is my sheer angsty mopiness and capacity to endlessly complain the whole time!"

Stay in the cinema until the very end of the credits, because there are couple of extra bits after the end.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSzx-zryEgM

Ulugh Beg, the battle astronomer

Who says you can't be a warmongering astronomer ?

In 1428, he built an enormous observatory, called the Gurkhani Zij, similar to Tycho Brahe's later Uraniborg as well as Taqi al-Din's observatory in Istanbul. Lacking telescopes to work with, he increased his accuracy by increasing the length of his sextant; the so-called Fakhri sextant had a radius of about 36 meters (118 feet) and the optical separability of 180" (seconds of arc). Using it, he compiled the 1437 Zij-i-Sultani of 994 stars, generally considered the greatest star catalogue between those of Ptolemy and Brahe.

In 1437, Ulugh Beg determined the length of the sidereal year as 365.2570370...d = 365d 6h 10m 8s (an error of +58 seconds). This value was improved by 28 seconds in 1525 by Nicolaus Copernicus, who appealed to the estimation of Thabit ibn Qurra (826–901), which had an error of +2 seconds. However, Beg later measured another more precise value as 365d 5h 49m 15s, which has an error of +25 seconds, making it more accurate than Copernicus' estimate which had an error of +30 seconds.

Beg also determined the Earth's axial tilt as 23.52 degrees, which remained the most accurate measurement for hundreds of years. It was more accurate than later measurements by Copernicus and Tycho Brahe.

When he heard of the death of his father Shahrukh Mirza, Ulugh Beg went to Balkh, where he heard that his nephew had claimed the emirship of the Timurid Empire in Herat. Consequently, Ulugh Beg marched against Ala-ud-Daulah and met him in battle at Murghab. Having won this battle, Ulugh Beg advanced toward Herat and massacred its people in 1448, but Ala-ud-Daulah's brother came to his aid, defeating Ulugh Beg.... Within two years, he was beheaded by the order of his own eldest son while on his way to Mecca.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulugh_Beg

The Finnish approach

Another article irritatingly ruined by the BBC's penchant for one-sentence paragraphs.

Aaaargh.

When will the madness end ?

While children in England and Wales are still toiling away in school into the middle of July, the Finns have already been on holiday for six weeks, in a summer break that lasts 10 to 11 weeks. And completing this picture of less is more, Finnish children do not in theory have to start school until they are seven - although most will have been in classes from an earlier age. But when it comes to the international Pisa tests, Finland is in sixth place and the UK is 23rd in reading; and Finland is 12th and the UK is 26th in maths.

There is little homework, compared with UK schools, and there is no culture of extra private tuition. A key concept in the Finnish school system, says Mr Tuominen, is "trust". Parents trust schools to make the right decisions and to deliver a good education within the school day - and schools put trust in the quality of their teachers.

Teaching is a high-status job in Finland and teachers are accorded a great deal of professional independence. It's a different philosophy from the system in England, says Mr Tuominen, which he sees as being built around a check-list of tests, league tables, targets and public accountability.

But before making any assumptions that the laid-back Finnish approach must be the way forward, you could just as easily look to the educational hot houses of Singapore or South Korea. Their children also do better than those in UK schools, but with an entirely different cultural approach, based on long hours and relentless pressure.

I would also point out the UK is miles ahead in terms of higher education, while South Korea has a suicide rate four times higher than the UK (and the Finnish rate is slightly more than twice the British rate).

"In Finland there's a long-term approach to education policy that means plans remain in place for a significant amount of time, giving them a chance to work," he says. "In England the opposite is true. The government is constantly tinkering with policy and there's an obsession with structure - such as grammar schools and academies - rather than a focus on evidence."

The OECD's education director, Andreas Schleicher, says extra hours are linked to better results. "You teach one hour of science more per week and you will see that reflected in higher average scores," he says. But that doesn't mean it's going to be enough to catch up - because countries such as Finland, he says, can "deliver greater value in learning in fewer hours".

There's also bad news on the homework front. Even if the Finns don't need it, research suggests it makes a positive difference. Prof Susan Hallam from the Institute of Education says there is "hard evidence" that homework really does improve how well pupils achieve. "There is no question about that," she says. A study for the Department for Education found students who did two to three hours of homework per night were almost 10 times more likely to achieve five good GCSEs than those who did no homework.

Saku Tuominen, director of this HundrEd project, says parents in Finland don't really want longer hours in school. He says there is a "holistic" approach to education, with parents wanting a family-friendly approach.

So this article mentions a bunch of interesting facts, but doesn't really tie them together to answer its own question : how is Finnish primary education delivering better results per hour of teaching than British education ? I suppose it's nice to point out than the Finnish system is more holistic and less self-centred than the British idea that personal success in work must be put ahead of family life (e.g. longer summer holidays would be extremely difficult in the UK), but what is it, specifically, in those teaching hours that makes the Finns better ?
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-37716005

Star Trek as Sociological Fiction

Part 1/2. In which I explore some of the sociological and political aspects of Star Trek.

Trek is also frequently and entirely justifiably accused of resorting to essentially magic when it comes to the science and technology aspect. This is absolutely true but mostly irrelevant. The thing that fans clamouring for more realism are missing is that Trek is to some degree sociological fiction, not science fiction. Alien species aren't usually there to speculate on what alien species would actually be like, they're plot devices. They're there to explore some aspect of human societies, usually to contrast with the utopian Federation to examine why they don't work. Sometimes they've developed advanced tech that's caused social chaos or cohesion, other times they've got some arse-backwards political idea that's easily exposed as nonsense when you compare it to Federation benevolence.

Trek examines sociological issues primarily by means of other species. Sometimes it does so by asking purely speculative, science fiction questions to examine how some technological development might affect us. Sometimes it looks at purely societal issues, often pointing out the flaws of taking things to extremes and the virtues of moderation. Usually, it examines the effects of both technology and politics simultaneously. Because that's the thing about the human condition : you can't fully examine humanity without considering both. Humans like building clever gadgets, and those gadgets influence and change their politics and philosophy, which in turn influences the clever gadgets they build.

In part two, I'll look at the nature of the Federation utopia and how a combination of technology and politics is essential in maintaining it.

What Some Nerd Thinks About Star Trek (I)

Part One : The Sociology of Star Trek A long time ago on an island far, far away, I wrote about why Star Trek is a better show than Battlestar Galactica. That is, Trek is an optimistic piece of science fiction whereas BSG could be accurately titled, "The Very Depressed People Who Got Chased By Sex-Mad Emo Robots And Then They All Died"...

Renewables are now bigger than coal

This article has the stupid BBC curse of one-sentence "paragraphs", so here it is reformatted into something readable.

The International Energy Agency says that the world's capacity to generate electricity from renewable sources has now overtaken coal.

The IEA says in a new report that last year, renewables accounted for more than half of the increase in power capacity. The report says half a million solar panels were installed every day last year around the world. In China, it says, there were two wind turbines set up every hour. Renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar and hydro are seen as a key element in international efforts to combat climate change.

At this stage, it is the capacity to generate power that has overtaken coal, rather than the amount of electricity actually produced. Renewables are intermittent - they depend on the sun shining or the wind blowing, for example, unlike coal which can generate electricity 24 hours a day all year round. So renewable technologies inevitably generate a lot less than their capacity. Even so it is striking development. The IEA's Executive Director Fatih Birol said "We are witnessing a transformation of global power markets led by renewables".

The expansion of renewable capacity reflects cost reductions for onshore wind and solar panels that the report describes as impressive; reductions that would have been "unthinkable just five years ago". The IEA expects the trend of declining costs to continue. Those two technologies are likely to account for three quarters of future growth in renewables. Hydropower will continue growing, the report says, but it is likely to do so more slowly than before.

Declining costs are also one reason the agency has increased its forecast for renewable capacity in the future. Another factor mentioned by the report is government policies that provide financial incentives for using renewable power sources. The United States, for example, has extended tax credits. The report says policy changes in China, India and Mexico have also been important forces behind the increased forecast for the growth of the sector.

The IEA says the centre of gravity for renewable growth is moving to emerging markets. China, the report says, "remains the undisputable global leader of renewable energy expansion, representing close to 40% of growth". Although this report does point to a much bigger role for renewables than seemed likely very recently, it still thinks there's a need for more.

Mr Birol said: "even these higher expectations remain modest compared with the huge untapped potential of renewables". And in other areas of energy use, beyond electricity, renewables have made less impressive inroads. In transport and heating "progress in renewables penetration… remains slow", the report says.

It also says there is a need for more action on climate change. Renewable energy - for electricity and other uses - is a key group of technologies for reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, notably carbon dioxide. Renewables are supplying energy that would probably otherwise have come from burning fossil fuels such as coal and oil, which yield greenhouse gases as a waste product.

The IEA says that international targets for limiting climate change will "require stronger decarbonisation rates [which means the replacement of fossil fuels] and accelerated penetration of renewables in all three sectors: power, transport and heat".
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-37767250

Psychology research can be spoooooky

OK, this is wonderful. Thoroughly wonderful. In fact it's so wonderful I've decided not to spoil it with a summary, you'll have to read the whole thing for yourselves. You get one quote, that's it.

On the 28th May 1960, at precisely 7:40pm, AD Cornell valiantly attempted to ‘haunt’ a cinema audience who were sitting down to enjoy an X-rated film. Before emerging from the shadows, Cornell draped himself in a white muslin sheet, the fabric covering him from head to toe. He then emerged before the unsuspecting audience and was bathed in the light of projector. He moved in front of the screen, from the left edge to the right edge and back again. For Science!

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20161024-the-strange-tale-of-an-x-rated-haunting

The NSF just want to break things

And lo ! The NSF are again considering bonkers options for defunding one of the world's most advanced radio telescopes. Good job, team ! Let's normalise the process of considering radically stupid actions ! YAY !

Alternatives to be evaluated in the Environmental Impact Statement will be refined through public input, with preliminary proposed alternatives that include the following:
Continued NSF investment for science-focused operations (No-Action Alternative)
Collaboration with interested parties for science- and education-focused operations with reduced NSF-funded scope
Collaboration with interested parties for operation as a technology and education park
Mothballing of facilities (suspension of operations in a manner such that operations could resume efficiently at some future date)
Deconstruction and site restoration

Woo-hoo.

http://greenbankobservatory.org/eis-statement

It's not the will of the people at all and never has been

TLDR version : the result was far too narrow. Minimum levels for the turnout and majority should have been set.

There have been at least 13 polls since June 23rd which have asked questions similar to ‘Would you vote the same again’ or ‘Was the country right to vote for Brexit’. Eleven of these polls indicate that the majority in the UK do not want Brexit. The poll predictions leading up to the referendum narrowed but a significant majority of late polls indicated that the country wanted to remain. The leader of UKIP even conceded defeat on the night of the vote, presumably because the final polls were convincing that Remain would win.

By March 2017 when Article 50 is due to be initiated, there will be approximately 563,000 new 18-year-old voters, with approximately a similar number of deaths, the vast majority (83 percent) amongst those over 65. Assuming those who voted stick with their decision and based on the age profile of the referendum result, that, alone, year on year adds more to the Remain majority. A Financial Times model indicated that simply based on that demographic profile, by 2021 the result would be reversed and that will be the case for the foreseeable future.

In the second group, members of the Commonwealth (and Eire) who were resident in the UK were able to vote but other members of the EU resident in the UK were not able to vote. All EU residents of Scotland were eligible to vote in the Scottish Referendum but not in the Brexit Referendum. Clearly, if democracy is regarded as allowing those most affected by a decision to have a say in that decision, then this has not happened.  With 2.9 million EU residents in the UK, it is likely that the majority would have voted for Remain and that too is likely to have reversed the decision

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/10/24/brexit-is-not-the-will-of-the-british-people-it-never-has-been/

France will test Universal Basic Income

More trials of UBI are needed in Western nations. I'm a fan of the idea, but I still think it could have a lot of unforseen consequences.

The 433-page report formally commits to the testing of a basic income in France, through three-year pilots involving up to 30,000 citizens. The report also concludes that if the pilots showed successful results, the potential implementation of a nationwide basic income should meet the following criteria:

• Be paid only to adult residents registered by fiscal authorities;
• Be higher than the current minimum income scheme in France;
• Be unconditional, although the money could be targeted to specific uses (in the form of vouchers);
• Be financed by an important fiscal reform and partial replacement existing social benefits in a manner that favors the recipients.

http://basicincome.org/news/2016/10/france-senate-report-milestone-basic-income/

Miniature American flags, dammit !

In an interview on 12 October (in Polish), he said: "We will strive to ensure that even in pregnancies which are very difficult, when a child is sure to die, strongly deformed, women end up giving birth so that the child can be baptised, buried, and have a name."

Whut.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37745693

The weirdly wonderful denizens of the deep

Scores of spectacular and rare under sea species have been found by expeditions this year to some of the deepest trenches in the Pacific Ocean. They include strange purple orbs, "mud monsters" and a bizarre swimming sea cucumber reminiscent of a flying Mary Poppins.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37706202

The world's ugliest animals ?

They're pretty ugly, but I reckon there are uglier animals out there. The Surninam Toad deserves a mention : http://67.media.tumblr.com/f6d2c7df49463c9afed7b4850153c43e/tumblr_msexz5WcBn1r4wpt9o1_1280.jpg
http://www.bbc.com/earth/gallery/20161021-feast-your-eyes-on-the-ugliest-animals-in-the-world

A bike lock that gases thieves

There has got to be a better way of dealing with thieves than gassing them.

The "Skunklock" is a U-shaped steel bicycle lock with a pressurised, stinking gas inside. The gas escapes in a cloud if someone attempts to cut the lock. The company claims its "noxious chemical" is so disgusting it "induces vomit in the majority of cases." Even better, it claims, the gas causes "shortness of breathing" and impaired eyesight.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-37732748

Realistic choices

The Conservatives have held ex-PM David Cameron's former seat of Witney in a by-election, but with a majority reduced by more than 20,000 votes. Robert Courts won by 5,702 votes, with the party's vote share falling from 60% in 2015 to 45%, as the Lib Dems surged past Labour into second. Liz Leffman polled 11,611 votes as the Lib Dems' share rose from 7% to 30%

Also of note :

Duncan Enright (Lab) - 5,765 (14.99%)
Larry Sanders (Green) - 1,363 (3.54%) (yes, that's Bernie's brother)
Mad Hatter (Loony) - 129 (0.34%)
Lord Toby Jug (Eccentric) - 59 (0.15%) (apparently there was a split in the MRL party)
Turnout - 46.74%

Mr Farron said the Lib Dem resurgence signalled that the party was "back in the political big time" and represented a "return to three-party politics." "This was the 10th safest Tory seat in the country with a massive 25,000 majority, yet the Conservatives were seriously rattled," he said.

Making the absurd but interesting assumptions that we can draw any kind of meaningful inferences from this one data point, the next election is anyone's guess. Unlike the silly referendum advisory opinion poll of late, or the equally silly American-style electoral system, the choices at UK general elections are finely nuanced. For instance, my constituency is a Labour-Tory minority with the Lib Dems in a distant third. Or is it ? If they can surge to second place in such a safe seat, is it not possible that they can surprise everyone in Cardiff North ?

I don't particularly want to vote Labour at the next election because I think the current leader is both dangerous and useless (a rare combination indeed). I can rule out the Tories and UKIP because I'm fundamentally morally opposed to just about everything they stand for. I won't vote for the Greens (if they even have a candidate in CN) or Plaid Cymru because I think they're mad and stupid. That still leaves me with three potential options : Labour, the Lib Dems, or the the Monster Raving Loony Party (https://www.loonyparty.com/5418/5544/the-definitive-welsh-assembly-loony-party-manicfesto-2016/).

Labour still have the best chance of actually winning and supporting policies I approve of. But I don't want to give their leader the time of day because of his despotic Communist tendencies and his ridiculous anti-EU stance. I'm in general a fan of the Lib Dems, and since they're now firmly opposed to Brexit that strikes a big chord with me. I'm mostly ready to forgive them for bedding the Tories... I think. But would my vote really count for anything if (as is likely) they have no chance of winning in my constituency ? It's all very well saying, "vote for whoever you like best", but it's silly to ignore who actually has any chance of winning locally. And it's more subtle than that, because I generally prefer Labour's policies and competence but it's just the fact that voting for them would be an endorsement of Corbyn that would feel like I have soiled myself.

Which leaves the pro-dragon, pro-space policies of the MRL. A protest vote for sure ! Except that lots of people made a protest vote at the referendum opinion poll, and look how that turned out. If they won, I'd be partially responsible. And if they don't win, I'd also be partially responsible if the Tories won because I would have denied their opponents a vote. Oh, what fun times ahead...
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-37719170

Gorilla escapes from zoo; goes on squash-drinking rampage

The next King Kong remake is going to have to make a few changes. Or possibly there'll have to be a sequel to The Tiger Who Came To Tea.
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-london-37710435

Cui bono ?

Very erudite for the Mirror, via Joerg Fliege.

The question posed was, in hindsight, the wrong one. The ballot paper should have said: "Would you like Britain to be remain as stupid as it is now? Or would you like it be more stupid?"

Because once Michael Gove pushed all the experts over a metaphorical cliff of ignorance we were left, by definition, with people who are not experts. And the stupids running the show are driving us over the same cliff, insisting all the while we'll like it once we're over this scary bit at the edge.

And through it all, amid all the blaming and moaning and fumbling around, no-one asks the most obvious question. Who benefits from a fall in the pound? People who are paid in foreign currencies, like Nigel is and unlike the 17m who voted for Brexit. Who benefits from a City slump? Mega-rich traders, not the 17m who voted for Brexit.

Who benefits from a lack of maths and experts? People who want everyone else to stay stupid.

Who benefits from Britain behaving like ignorant racists? Only ignorant racists, who think it confirms they were right all along.

Brexit was about giving the wealthy elite one in the eye, and it's failed miserably.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/brexit-means-stupid-who-voted-9078503

Mid-air holograms

Via Winchell Chung. Certainly not a holodeck, but getting pretty close to R2D2's projector.

Originally shared by Jason Mayes

Possibly the most promising #holographic projection system I have seen to date which manages to create projections in air by controlling the air in a confined space so well it can change the properties of light (refraction, reflection / diffusion) which interacts with that volume of air, thus creating the visual you see below - which is safe to touch too. #Physics #ComputerScience #Hologram Go back it on #KickStarter https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2029950924/holovect-holographic-vector-display/description
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2029950924/holovect-holographic-vector-display/description

The BBC says this submarine was sunk by a great big monster

This was an altogether weirder article than I was expecting.

Experts believe the vessel could be the UB-85, a sub sunk by HMS Coreopsis in 1918, according to official records. However, naval folklore suggests it may have been attacked by a "sea monster".

The entire crew of the U-boat is reported to have abandoned ship due to the "monster attack" and once aboard the British HMS Coreopsis, their commander, Captain Krech described their encounter.

He is said to have spoken of a beast with "large eyes, set in a horny sort of skull… with teeth that could be seen glistening in the moonlight". He apparently claimed that the sub was so damaged in its battle with the "monster", it could no longer submerge. It was found floating on the surface of the water by the Coreopsis.

Dr Innes McCartney, a historian and nautical archaeologist... said tales of sea monsters and haunted U-boats came about due to secrecy surrounding exactly what happened during the first U-boat war which meant that period was "ripe for conspiracies". He said the stories were often concocted as a result of journalists and ex-Navy men "talking late at night, after having a nice time".

He added: "I don't think it was a sea monster. I like the idea of Nessie doing her bit for the war effort but in reality the real sea monster was the U-boat."

But Gary Campbell, the keeper of the Official Sightings Register of the Loch Ness Monster, said: "It is entirely feasible that some large sea creature disabled the submarine. The World War One report from the captain of the British ship HMS Hilary a year earlier makes it clear that sea farers at that time were well aware of large sea 'monsters' that could be harmful to their ships. The area of sea where the attack took place has a history of sea monster sightings - they have ranged from the north coast of Wales to Liverpool bay. What the German captain said could well be true."

The expert on sea monsters said it was probably a sea monster what done it, so that must be true then. The guy with a PhD is probably an elitist tool of the establishment.

Or maybe this whole article is actually just promotional material for the Doctor Who Christmas special ?
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-south-scotland-37691283

The government listened to the wrong advice it gave itself

The government's own advice on referenda, from 2010. There certainly are some interesting nuggets here.

"Two options should generally be preferred, as this avoids ambiguous results and should help voter comprehension."

Yes. Giving people two over-simplified choices to an extremely complex problem was definitely, definitely the best thing to do. How marvellous it was to be able to reduce the complex treaties and economic arrangements of the last few decades to, "Brexit means Brexit" ! We wouldn't have wanted to have actually considered what "Brexit means Brexit" actually means in any detail, heavens no !

"The Government agrees that there should be a presumption against turnout thresholds. These have the potential to distort the result of a poll and frustrate the express will of the people, in some cases effectively turning abstentions into 'no' votes."

Oh yes, wasn't it just marvellous when a small majority of mostly older racist people who live in the countryside and have never even caught sight of any of those nasty brown people decided that they had the absolute right to overturn decades on economic and social policies, despite it being a small and highly indecisive result ? Yes, it definitely would have been very silly indeed to require a clear majority to change the status quo. Nice one people !

And then some more sensible ideas :

"We recognise that because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a
decisive expression of public opinion."

"Response: The Government agrees with this recommendation. Under the UK's constitutional arrangements Parliament must be responsible for deciding whether or not to take action in response to a referendum result."

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201011/ldselect/ldconst/34/3404.htm

BoatyMcBoatface rides again

So in the end, instead of a polar research ship called Boaty McBoatface, we have a research ship called David Attenborough that deploys a yellow submarine robot called Boaty McBoatface that goes on adventures.

I'm OK with this turn of events.

Stand by for the adventures of Boaty, the plucky sub that takes on the toughest jobs in polar science.

Scientists plan to send the long-range autonomous vehicle under the sea-ice of the Arctic - from one side of the ocean basin to the other. It is a journey of at least 2,500km - and while nuclear subs might routinely do it, the prospect is a daunting one for a battery-operated research vehicle.

“Previously, such subs have gone perhaps 150km under the ice and then come back out out again. Boaty will have the endurance to go all the way across the Arctic.”

“One of the things we’re going to do is teach Boaty to read a map,” said Prof Wynn. “You give it a map of the seabed in its brain and then as it travels it uses sonar to collect data that it can compare with the stored map. This should tell it where it is. It’s a neat concept but it’s never been tested over thousands of km before.”

Boaty is the latest in a long line of robots that have had the anthropomorphism treatment. But be warned if you plan to get attached to this particular plucky sub. “We do occasionally lose our vehicles, and they can get caught in fishing nets from time to time,” cautioned Prof Wynn. “There could well be some dramas ahead for those people who plan to follow Boaty on his missions."

I withdraw all my previous criticism. The whole thing is adorable.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-37685883

Stark Trek humans : "hold my beer, I got this"

Yep.

http://imgur.com/gallery/wpZ4w

Have third parties, not third party candidates

Here's a crazy idea for ya : stop having third party candidates. Just vote for third parties. Get them some actual parliamentary seats before you decide they should be leader of the free world, mmkay ?

'muricans. Sigh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3O01EfM5fU

Boris versus Boris

Not in the least surprising to anyone who watched Boris' rabidly pro-EU "Turkey should be a member" documentary from a few years back, but probably very surprising indeed to anyone who only paid attention to Boris in the last six months or so. Witness Boris' outstanding levels of u-turning an inconsistency on matters of principle.

https://tompride.wordpress.com/2016/05/28/the-great-eu-debate-boris-johnson-vs-boris-johnson/

Turning the tables

Imagining things can be painful. Brace yourself.

Imagine if it were Hillary Clinton who had had five children by three husbands, who had said it was fine to refer to her daughter as a “piece of ass,” who participated in a radio conversation about oral sex in a hot tub, who rated men based on their body parts, who showed up in Playboy soft porn videos.

Imagine if 15 men had accused Clinton of assaulting or violating them, with more stepping forward each day.

Imagine if Clinton had held a Mr. Teen USA pageant and then marched unannounced into the changing area to ogle the young bodies as some were naked and, after doing the same thing at a Mr. USA pageant, marveled on a radio show at what she was allowed to get away with.

Imagine if in a primary election debate Clinton had boasted that there’s “no problem” with the size of her vagina.

http://nyti.ms/2e7gqUa

Standard responses to quackery

With only minor modifications, most of these apply equally well to any branch of science or rational thinking. It's a really excellent list, here are just a very few select highlights.

Supporters of alternative medicine and purveyors of quack remedies love to criticise conventional medicine and science. They keep repeating the same tired arguments that are easily rebutted. This handy guide will help skeptics answer common criticisms from doctor-bashers.

Comedian Dara Ó Briain said it best: “Science knows it doesn’t know everything, otherwise, it’d stop. But just because science doesn’t know everything doesn’t mean you can fill in the gaps with whatever fairy tale most appeals to you.”

Science is founded on only two underlying premises: that there is a material world, and that we can learn about how that world works. Science doesn’t “believe” anything; it asks and verifies. It has an excellent track record of practical success. The scientific method unquestionably works.

[I think it actually has more like five underlying assumptions, but  that's a detail.]

They inconsistently argue that science is dogmatic while also arguing that science keeps changing its mind. Dogmatism is found in CAM [Complementary and Alternative Medicine, i.e. quackery], not in science.

There is a difference between the appeal to authority (“He’s a professor at Harvard, so we should believe everything he says”) and accepting the consensus of experts who know more about the field than we do. If ten top mechanics agree that your carburetor needs replacing, it is reasonable to replace the carburetor. It is not reasonable to listen to your barber if he says you can fix the carburetor by sprinkling lemon juice on it. All too often, CAM advocates are the ones who are parroting unreliable “authorities” who don’t know what they’re talking about.

We don’t need to keep an open mind about perpetual motion or a flat Earth, and we don’t need to keep an open mind about homeopathy. CAM advocates are the ones whose minds are truly closed. Most of them hold their beliefs so firmly that they reject any evidence to the contrary. One practitioner told me he would keep using his pet method even if it were definitely proven not to work, because “his patients liked it.”

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/defending_science-based_medicine_44_doctor-bashing_arguments_and_rebuttals

Takes one to know one

Or any of your thoughts on pretty much any topic, really, because you're either a) fantastically stupid, as in magical but not in a good way; b) a cold-hearted Machiavellian Bond-esque supervillain; c) clinically delusional.

Found on the internet.