Swiss vote against minarets but they should be allowed in augmented reality

Part of my family is Swiss, so I followed the recent referendum on minarets with more interest than I normally would. They have voted to ban construction of minarets on mosques. But the debate seems to have missed a key point. The world is no longer limited to physical appearance. We now have augmented reality, albeit just the very first instances. In a few years time, augmented reality will be well developed and will feature heavily in everyday life. Today we use mobile phone displays but soon many of us will use some sort of head-up display, and we will see all manner of computer generated information and images superimposed on our real world field of view. Social, political, religious and business groups will use augmented reality to produce customised overlays that include their particular symbols. So for muslims, this could be used to produce the image of a minaret, for anyone interested in seeing it. Muslims can have virtual minarets, and as many as they want, without interfering with the physical reality of a mosque. French Muslims can have virtual burqas too if they like. And everyone else can choose whether they want to see them or not.

Virtuality is an excellent vehicle for allowing different tribes of all kinds to live peacefully side by side. They can agree what common ground they have an make laws on physical architecture, dress codes or whatever that apply to everyone. And then they can use augmented reality to customise it and personalise it, at tribal or individual level.

Ban on minarets? No problem any more. just build them in virtual space and everyone can be happy.

revolution is coming, in 2012

Refusal to deal properly with MPs' Expenses, encouraging massive immigration just to annoy the Tories, helping in the eradication of democracy in Europe by refusing 65 million people any say in their future, ignoring scientific fraud in climate research provided it opens up new tax and wealth re-distribution platforms, incompetence dealing with the banking collapse and subsequent worsening of double or multiple dip recession, getting us bogged down in far away conflicts, imposing a Big Brother surveillance state, associating the UK with the eradication of free speech via libel laws, making the UK the divorce capital of the world, engaging in illegal wars overseas while providing a safe haven for terrorist groups here, upending the justice system so that over-filling a bin is punished more severely than mugging or shoplifting and presiding over the dismantling of common sense in favour of political correctness, dismantling society, etc, etc.

Private sector pension schemes are being closed and watered down, while public sector workers seem to live in a protected world at private sector expense. People are getting older so the pensions won't be able to cope, and taxes will have to rise. Too much of the population already lives on handouts from the rest. Young people watch older people getting more rights, more funding and living in expensive houses, while they foot the bill via higher and higher taxes, or can't get jobs at all, and many can't afford homes of their own. Intergenerational conflict is just around the corner. Meanwhile, second and third generation immigrants are leaving to go back to their ancestors' homelands to get a higher quality of life for their kids. Today we read that the number of people leaving the UK is the highest ever, while over half a million newcomers have arrived this year. Most of them will go home later because they've either made the money they wanted or discovered that the grass isn't as green as they thought from the other side of the fence. This re-migration will replace immigration and a brain drain will leave the UK with far too few people with the right skills to sustain a viable economy.

This is all stuff we read about daily in every newspaper and hear on every TV channel. I've probably left out a lot of gripes, there are just too many to list from memory. People in the UK are pissed off big time and see little evidence that their gripes are being listened to. It is the stuff revolution is made of. But it hasn't reached critical mass yet, and the right spark hasn't been struck. My calculations over the last several years have led me to believe that we will see a revolution in 2012, based on nothing more than watching the speed of increase and volume of protest. I could be out either way by a year. If I'm out by 2, it could be next year, but I really don't think so.

Question 1: When will it reach critical mass? When will enough people become angry enough to sustain a revolution? As I said, my best guess is still 2012.

Question 2 is: what will be the spark that ignites it? I think it will be an severe increase in taxation - various tax increases to pay for the bankers' mistakes, and lots of new environmental levies, coupled with an increase in surveillance to police it all, coupled finally with a mature social web that will enable people to build and wield political power on the web effectively.

Questions 3: what will the revolution look like?
It will start peacefully as an on-line protest, and will gather speed quickly. Some charismatic people will capture the mood and rise quickly to the top and act as spokespeople. Then it will quickly disintegrate into violent protests, coordinated electronically using a variety of interwoven platforms. It will spread to multiple agendas, in much the same way as the anti-capitalist protests did, and acquire a large number of hangers-on more interested in demonstrating than the causes themselves. Violence will start to increase, and will spread to other countries that share some of the same grievances. Police will do their best to control it, but will be out-manoeuvred and outnumbered.

Question 4: what will the result be?
Anyone's guess

Is environmental science now beyond repair?

First, I really like George Monbiot's blog today, but he doesn't say it all so I'm just adding my own comments. http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/nov/25/monbiot-climate-leak-crisis-response

Like many other people right now (including Monbiot), I am very angry that some so-called scientists in climate research are getting in the way of protecting the environment. Some seem far too concerned about winning research funding, furthering their careers, indulging their egos, polishing their halos, and being seen on moral pedestals to make proper contributions to science. Although they make a lot of noise about their efforts to protect the environment, they have corrupted and obstructed the scientific method, distorted and destroyed data, and consequently their own results are worse than worthless, and their output has badly polluted the field of environmental science. And like Monbiot, I am also just as concerned that other environmentalists seem to be in denial and using technicalities to justify the behaviour rather than jumping instead to defend the scientific integrity that we will need if there really is a major climate problem to be dealt with. I feel very sorry for the many excellent scientists out there working hard to protect the planet, almost certainly the vast majority. All of them will now find that their work will be harder and their outputs less respected until the problems are dealt with.

The recent scandal is extremely worrying, because if the stolen emails are indeed real, and Phil Jones has already admitted that at least some of them are, then it suggests that some of the science we thought was true is actually false, some might not be true, and some of the holes have been papered over. It has been created with contempt for the scientific method and pushed using marketing tools and bullying in place of reasoned argument. Having read a selection of the emails at random, and some of the other documents hacked from the site, I was deeply shocked. Anyone should expect a little inevitable distortion in the field because of the height of emotion felt by researchers, but I really never though it was so bad as it is. I am disgusted that Jones hasn't already been suspended by the university pending a full investigation, which says a lot about the UEA's regard for integrity and proper scientific principles. I certainly won't be recommending anyone to study there from now on. The UEA's reputation has been trashed already, whatever the truth of the emails' validity, and if the emails do indeed turn out to be genuine, many of the supposedly top climate scientists have been shown not to be real scientists at all by their obvious contempt for the scientific method.

This is just a small group of researchers of course, but they were highly regarded in climate science and hence highly influential, and their theories have been widely proliferated and accepted in the field. Their methodology of trying to obstruct access to data, and hiding data that doesn't conform to the dogma also now seems to be quite common. Again, if the emails are real, then some journals and boards have been corrupted by excluding those who don't agree with the dogmatic line. And the damage has permeated the media, much of which has polarised along dogmatic lines. The whole field does seem to have become more like a religion than a scientific discipline. Even at recruitment stage, it seems to be prone to strong emotional and political bias, something that doesn't affect other branches of science. I think the credibility of the existing structure of climate science is beyond repair. We have to throw it away and start again, salvaging whatever bits match up to proper scientific standards. And at the moment, we really have no idea how much of it that is. It will cost a lot, but the costs of doing the wrong things based on bad science might be much worse. But science works, and good scientists give their allegiance to the scientific method, not to their emotions, so with effort it can be done. Eventually, professionalism will win.

The proper scientific method needs to be fully enforced in the field, starting now, and a major review of all the existing work undertaken, by every research centre. Research centres must share all of their data freely with anyone who requests it. Journals should dismiss and re-appoint their editorial boards with due diligence, making sure that reviewers and editors are selected purely on technical competence and professionalism, and purge any bias towards any particular view. Bodies such as the IPCC should be similarly re-staffed from the ground up. Any grants for future research must be on condition of proper due diligence with regard to scientific integrity.

I've said many times that environmental groups should be applauded for encouraging people to care about the environment and protect it, but once they've done their work, they should get out of the way and let scientists figure out how the environment works and the nature and extent of any problems, so that engineers can develop proper working policies that will actually help keep it in good shape. The we can all live in a better world. But making policies based on emotions and bad science will get us nowhere.

If climate scientists are lying, how can the rest of us know the truth?

Science is a proven mechanism for gathering and accumulating knowledge about how the universe works. Some clever bunny comes up with a theory and someone carefully tests it, doing real life experiments to get some real data that is evidence for or against it. They publish that data, along with details of the experiment (or their computer models), so that other scientists can check it and try to replicate the experimental data, to make sure there isn't just some error in the experimental process or the analysis. If verified data doesn't fully fit the initial theory, the theory is modified, and the process starts over. Over time, theories are well tested and either verified or disproved, and the whole field of scientific knowledge progresses, with new knowledge gradually added to what we already knew. This process has worked well for hundreds of years, and is the basis for almost all of our technological progress. Science is just verified knowledge.

Sadly, climate science has been perverted by politics and emotion as well as grant competition and some appears to have scant regard for the scientific process. There is fierce argument between those who say our climate will change dramatically because of human activity and those who say it won't, and further argument about the potential mechanisms for dealing with any change. People on both sides seem fond of cherry picking or distorting data to support their theory and discarding, ignoring or disguising data that doesn't. There is also evidence that some scientists are not sharing their data or methods as they should, or publishing their computer models.

There must be a great deal of excellent science out there, but if it is mixed up with bad science, how are those of us outside to know the difference? People need to be able to trust that the basic science is correct, and the consequent policies justified. If they can't, if some scientists have been caught distorting or hiding the truth for their own ends, then getting public support for actions will be much more difficult. If we are indeed facing the enormous consequences suggested by some in the field, then we need to act accordingly. If we're not, then we need to know that too before we waste many billions that could have been spent better elsewhere.For the benefit of the environment, bad  or corrupt scientists need to be exposed and ejected from the climate science field before they can do any more harm. Any data that they had should be inspected very carefully by other more reputable scientists and any analysis that has used any falsified data or conclusions needs to be redone.

People who deliberately distort data to make climate change look worse than the data really suggests may think they are helping to protect the environment, but are actually among the biggest dangers the environment faces. They are getting in the way of the proper science that we need to understand what is really happening and how to deal with it, and undermining support for any actions that are needed.

The need for scientific integrity obviously applies to both sides of the argument. We need to know the truth so that we can take the right actions. That means openly sharing details of models and experiments and all of the gathered data, whether it supports a particular theory or not, so that other scientists can check it all and build on it. Never before has it been so important that the scientific process is upheld. Our lives depend on it, and our environment is too important to be sacrificed to further the ego or ideology of any group.

Cheating and social tunnelling

Inventions succeed or fail in the market depending on how many people want them, and are prepared to pay the price. Reasons for wanting them vary enormously, but one of the guarantees of success is if the idea allows us to do stuff we always wanted to, but couldn't. And one of the biggest and most common reasons why we can't do something is that it is not socially acceptable.

So, if we can avoid society knowing what we are up to, and avoid otherwise negative impacts on our social status and reputation, or if we can directly bypass an otherwise strong social barrier, then an invention that taps into a basic desire can be successful. There are numerous inventions that fall into this list. VHS and SMS are good examples from the last decades. In the 80s, VHS allowed people to watch porn in private instead of being seen at a cinema. In the 90s, the web allowed them to avoid even the embarassment of buying a video or magazine. But it isn't just porn that encourages us to bypass social norms. Most SMS messages are connected in some way with flirting. Much of the attractiveness in SMS is that by avoiding face to face contact with the target, fears of rejection are lowered, and so people will flirt with more people, and do so with less inhibition. Even the text phrase LOL is ambiguous, meaning both 'lots of love' and 'laughs out loud', so can be safely used in texts to test the water before someone is sure that their feelings are reciprocated.

All of this amounts to a sort of cyberspace 'social tunnelling'. We use these tools to get to a goal without directly confronting a social barrier. We tunnel through it. In more recent years, sites like 2nd Life, dating sites, and many others, have capitalised well on the value of such tunnelling. But while these sites are used in many cases to innocently bypass distance or fears of rejection, the more dangerous side is that they are also often quite deliberately used to bypass other social norms. If I make an advance on another man's wife in front of him, I might expect him to become hostile. But if I send secret texts to his partner, or interact with her in internet chat rooms, he may remain totally unaware of the illicit relationship. The desire of people to play with other people's partners has always been part of human society, but it is only these recent inventions that have enabled easy access to social tunnels.

But the technology hasn't stopped developing, and new kinds of tunnels will appear from time to time, some of which will be even more compelling. I often joke that using the active contact lens displays that may be commonplace in a decade or so, I could be in bed playing with my wife but using computer overlays (aka augmented reality) actually see the next door neighbour's wife, or some supermodel. Thankfully my wife knows I am only joking, but the capability will nevertheless be real. Using active skin to record and replay sensations, it will even be possible to time-shift illicit play.

Such technological capability will have some positive uses of course,  but it will still represent a strong threat to social bonds. People will be less able to trust each other if it is easier and more fun to cheat. But will this lead to social collapse? Of course not.

Actually, I suspect that the real problem is a short to mid term one. When everyone is well aware of the potential for cheating, then we will adapt and learn to live with it. And of course, new tools are constantly being developed to enable partners to check on each other. As new tunnels are built, other older ones collapse. The real problems occur where one party uses their superior techno-literacy to outwit and cheat on the other, and before surveillance tools become widespread. Ultimately, the same solid foundations of human nature will come to bear again. We are more likely to be open and honest when we know we can be caught. Sad, but true.

Govt creates new database to let women harm their ex

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/20/domestic_violence_database/ discusses a recent ACPO/Home Office proposal that looks at how domestic violence affects women and children, and specifically excludes men. If this is true, it is very disturbing. Violence against women is of course completely unacceptable, but many men are subjected to domestic violence too, which can be just as harmful to them, so it seems rather odd to deliberately exclude them, especially when our government makes so much noise about the need for equality. But leaving discrimination aside, the most worrying thing here is that a database is to be set up that specifically includes claims from women that would not be able to stand up to court standards. That means that any unsubstantiated rumours or malicious claims can be included in the database, possibly trashing a man's reputation, and potentially affecting his ability to forge new relationships (potential partners, or any woman claiming that they are interested in becoming a partner, would be able to ask police for any data). I find it very disturbing that the mere word of a woman should be taken as proof of the guilt of a man. It is not unheard of for women to tell lies. If a relationship fails, it is common for a woman to feel upset, and this system gives her an easy route to cause real and lasting harm her ex with no cost or risk to herself. It is even possible that men who are the victims of violence could then find themselves becoming victim to false accusations of violence against the women who attacked them.

How is it possible to have a healthy society where one gender is presumed in law to be always innocent and incapable of lying, while the other must accept the consequences, however damaging, however malicious? We all know people who would enthusiastically abuse such a system. Creating it gives a powerful new weapon to abusers. Creating a state-backed system to assist partner abuse cannot possibly help when partner abuse is the problem itself.

Nurses and degrees - big mistake

Several years ago I gave a presentation to the Royal College of Nursing. One of the main points of my talk was that the main role of nurses was caring for the patient and helping them get better, and that that by sticking to this, nurses would be guaranteed to keep a valued place in society, whereas if they pursued degrees in a misguided attempt to become somehow more 'professional', and effectively cheap doctors, they would both lose the esteem in which the public held them, and also jeopardise their future in a world where AI could already outperform average doctors in diagnosis, and where robots were already starting to do the highest precision surgery.

The years since have proved me totally right. Many nurses have pursued degrees and the media's attitudes to nurses has deteriorated badly. We often read now how uncaring nurses can be, how lazy they can be, how incompetent and so on. They always made mistakes, but we used to overlook them because they cared. Now the media says they are too posh to care, we don't like them any more. The same people still apply for jobs as nurses, and education has never equated to intelligence, so many of the basic errors still happen. Whereas once a nurse learned on the job and had their mental ability focused on the actual requirements of the job, they now have a more generic medical education that is more academic and less practical, and therefore much more suited to a doctor rather than a nurse.

Medical treatments require that we understand the basic science, can design good equipment and drugs, know how to use them effectively, and can do so in practice, but it is a dangerous fallacy that this knowledge is needed by practitioners at every stage of the care delivery chain. We already have specialist scientists, pharmacists, consultants, registrars and junior doctors. What we also need is someone to make sure that at the point of delivery, the human needs of the patient are taken care of fully, both physically and emotionally. Science shows clearly that people get better faster when they are properly cared for, and the emotional support once offered by nurses was a demonstrably important part of that. Happy patients get better quicker.

So we need the traditional nursing function, because it is an important and cost effective part of the treatment process. If, as seems to be the trend, nurses are becoming too posh to care, then we will need to reinvent a new job that fills that role. Nurses are being converted into cheap assistant deputy junior doctors, but will compete for a useful role with cheap PCs and robots. Let's get them out of the way and let some carers take over. We need them, and R2D2 can do the other bits cheaper and better anyway.

social trust, sense of humour

I am one of very many people wondering what all the fuss is about with Frankie Boyle's joke at Rebecca Adlington's expense. To me it isn't even remotely in the same league offence-wise as the one by Ross and Brand a year ago. He basically joked about her looks and sexual prowess. Of course it was poor taste, but most jokes are.

Complaining about jokes just makes people look worse. Being joked about hurts a little bit at the time, and it causes a very small and very brief drop in others' regard for us, but we quickly get over it, and other people's attitudes to us quickly recover, whereas demonstrating a lack of sense of humour by moaning creates a permanent, much more serious drop in regard. from now on, any time I see Adlington in the media in connection with her achievements, I will recall that she has demonstrated little sense of humour. If there had been no complaint, I wouldn't even have know about the joke since I didn't see the programme and would still have held her in high regard. So while she won't care about my views as an individual, similar attitudes in many other people will mean that her total social value has probably dropped significantly.

I've been made fun of a couple of times by various comedians, but I haven't and won't complain. I've never liked Jonathan Ross much, but it is his job to make fun of people and I was once or twice the butt of his jokes. So what? It was hardly in the same category as the Sachs prank. Griff Rhees Jones also made fun of my work, but I still enjoyed the programme in which he did so, and he is still one of my favourite comedians. It would never have occurred to me to complain about either occasion.

I think that the difference between most jokes and the one at Sachs' expense is the intent to hurt deeply, and that puts it in the same gutter entertainment level as 'happy slapping'. It's the difference between a poke in the ribs and beating someone up.

People's sense of humour varies enormously and there have always been some people who can't take a joke. But now, in today's victim culture, people who take offence at jokes that are much more minor are becoming a problem, trying to sterilise communication, entertainment and socialising. If we give in to pressure to remove all possible offence, regardless of triviality, we risk great social damage, reducing quality of life for everyone.

When people interact, they need to have a basic level of trust to make that transaction successful. The state can only provide a very limited level of trust, via certification and legislation, and since it is often obvious that this can easily be circumvented by those who want to, so such state provision is of little value. If we implement measures that prevent the establishment of trust by normal social means, then we will be in real trouble, and society will not be able to function properly. Everyday banter and joking oil interactions between people and help society to function well. They are a very important part of the tool-kit for establishing social trust. People who share a joke trust each other more. Introducing constraints and rules into the occasion reduces its emotional value and thereby the social trust value.

Many studies have shown that social trust is one of the most important ingredients of personal happiness. It is one of the reasons that we often see high happiness levels even in poor areas, and low happiness in rich areas. Humans are social animals and we need lots of high quality human contact to be happy. Needing to follow a strict rule book and constantly self censoring makes such contact more strenuous and more threatening. We treat others with suspicion, and have to be on our guard in case of being caught in breach of a rule. In other words, rules introduce stress into what should be fun. Censoring humour excessively directly undermines fun. Life is difficult enough already, without deliberately introducing rules that can only make it worse.

So let's stop this trend of taking offence at every opportunity. Whatever the short term gain for an individual might be, in the end it will make us all less happy.