alex chiang: web 6.0

September 29, 2004

“intelligent design” is neither

Filed under: dreck — alex @ 12:39 pm

First, thanks to David over at mind poison for linking to me. If you’re one of the saps who reads my dreck on a somewhat regular basis, you should consider popping on over to David’s site as well, since the quality of his writing is way better than mine.

In any case, continuing on with our framing discussion, we see that he who controls the framing controls the agenda. It’s a wily debate tactic, and takes a bit of practice to recognize, but it happens all the time, intended or not. A few days ago, we saw that those two programmers had a framing disconnect in their discussion. They didn’t notice it, but they were addressing two distinct points. Today, we see what happens when one side of the debate purposefully attempts to reframe the argument because they cannot win with the way the argument is currently framed. This tactic has parallels to the straw man fallacy, but it’s slightly different. Both are still dishonest (or lacking in discipline) however.

Interesting article in Wired today regarding creationism’s resurgence in some public schools.

This is a classic example of a framing battle. The creationists are attempting to reframe the debate about whether to teach creationism by using such language as “teach the controversy”. They have found a psuedo-scientific sounding phrase — “intelligent design” — to replace “creationism” which carries with it a lot of baggage.

(aside: I don’t accept this new phrase, since it attempts to add a veneer of scientific legitimacy to a non-scientific set of ideas.)

(aside 2: you’ll notice a lot of scare quotes in the following, basically because creationism is bunk)

The creationists have done a lot of vigorous hand-waving in order to make it seem like they are merely teaching the other “scientific” side of the “evolution controversy”.

The dissembling is what bugs me the most. If one wishes to believe in creationism, that is fine. It’s a matter of faith, and far be it from me to tell others what to think. But to pass it off as science is just plain dishonest, and a disservice to students.

The main difference, is that science is a process. You start off not knowing the answer, try to ask the right questions, look for the data to answer the questions, and then see if you have any further understanding. If taught poorly, science can seem like a mere litany, handed down from teacher to student and memorized by rote for the sake of regurgitating during a test, like history or grammar rules.

But it’s not supposed to be that way. Again, it’s supposed to be a spiral process, where you get closer and closer to understanding how things actually work while realizing that your understanding tomorrow may be drastically different from your understanding today.

In a nutshell, science is about testable hypotheses (thanks to a coworker for the pithy phrase).

In contrast, creationism presupposes the answer, and then goes looking for data to support that answer. Data that do not support creationism are discarded or subjected to more hand-waving until it does fit the conjecture. It proposes no hypotheses, makes no predictions, and its claims are untestable.

The implications of the last point should be made explicit here — untestable claims are a fundamental component of faith.

Let’s not “teach the controversy” in science class. Save that discussion for comparative religions.

September 27, 2004

open source and enterprise disconnect

Filed under: geek — alex @ 2:25 pm

Interesting conversation going on between Solaris engineer Eric Schrock and Linux kernel developer Greg Kroah. Eric started it, Greg rebutted it, Eric replied with round two, and finally Greg responds in kind. Go ahead and read those posts — I’ll wait.

Back? Ok, first, a disclaimer. I’m an HP-UX kernel engineer writing my own opinions on my own time, so please don’t take anything I say to be the official opinion of HP, as it’s not.

In any case, I feel compelled to jump into the fray here because I’m noticing a framing issue in the discussion, and that the two developers are talking past each other. There’s a disconnect between the wild and wooly culture of meritocracy prevalent in the open source world and the enterprise world which seems like it lives in the Cretaceous era at times, and this disconnect manifests itself over and over again in various online forums. Both sides think the other “just doesn’t get it” when really, they’re actually having two distinct conversations.

Eric first posted because he felt that the analysts didn’t understand the point of OpenSolaris. His impression was that the analysts were naively wondering why Sun doesn’t just pour its resources into Linux, rather than opening up Solaris. Eric attempted to explain that the reasons Sun is going to open up Solaris rather than going whole-hog with Linux, and the most significant reason that I saw was that the two operating systems simply have different priorities.

Reading Greg’s rebuttals, we immediately see the disconnect. First, he is more interested in a technical discussion about the merits of certain feature X than he is about Eric’s larger point. Second, he echoes a theme I’ve seen repeated quite often by Linux kernel developers which is, we’re writing this OS for ourselves, dammit.

Greg writes:

Which brings me to the very valid point about how Linux kernel development differs from any other OS development. We (kernel developers) do not have to accept any feature that we deem is not properly implemented, just because some customer or manager tells us we have to have it. In order to get your stuff into the kernel, you must first tell the community why it is necessary, and so many people often forget this.

In other words, the Linux kernel developers are the primary customers of the Linux kernel. If a feature is not implemented well, then it is rejected. Greg is exactly right in pointing out how Linux kernel development differs from any other OS development — it’s because they are writing it for themselves, dammit. In every other OS (and in this context, I mean commercial OS such as Windows, MacOS, proprietary unix, etc.), the requirements are driven by customer demand, not technical beauty.

And here is where the conversation usually diverges due to the disconnect. In fact, we see it right here. Greg talks about crash dumps and kernel debuggers and bears (oh my) and Eric gets sucked in, as he writes “… if you want a technology comparison, here are some Solaris examples…”. Greg has reframed the discussion around the technical reasons why each feature does (or does not) exist in Linux and away from the discussion that Eric framed, namely that these features are but mere examples of the different priorities of the two OSes.

Eric writes:

The original goal of my post was not “our technology is better than yours,” only that we have different priorities.

Greg says:

I was glad to see that Eric took the time to address my previous rebuttal to his previous comments. I welcome good technical discussions like this, in the open, without rude flames by anyone.

Both of these quotes are some of the first words written in the respective 2nd round rebuttals. I’m taking them a bit out of context (but not too much) to illustrate the fact that these two guys are on completely different worlds. They’re not even remotely having the same conversation (well, not until Eric got sucked into a features comparison), and that’s what jumped out at me from the get go.

Finally, what does enterprise mean, anyway? Greg writes:

You have customers paying that much money ["tens of millions of dollars"] for driver compatibility? Geesh, I didn’t know drivers were that expensive… Seriously, for Linux, this argument doesn’t even register. A customer does not have to worry about the huge investment they just made in hardware, and the fact that the driver they have for it better work for any future version, as they have the source to it (it’s in the kernel tree.) They know that it will work with all future versions of Linux, and if something goes wrong, they can either fix it themselves, or hire someone else to fix it for them, for far less than “millions of dollars.”

This is exactly what the enterprise is all about. A customer makes a huge investment in hardware (Itanium systems are expensive), and if something goes wrong, they’ve already hired someone to fix it for them — the vendor. Understand that the vendor has signed a contract to support the customer for 10 (or perhaps more) years to enable the customer to run his mission-critical business applications. The customer doesn’t want to fix it himself. His core competency is selling books or running an auction site or connecting cell phone calls, not writing system software.

Again, it’s not just paying for a driver, it’s paying for corporate stability and a guaranteed timely response when something goes wrong. If your $30 billion business is dependent on your Oracle database, spending several $million to make sure it never goes down is cheap insurance. Incidentally, if you understand this point, you’ll also understand why FUD actually works on those “dumb” suits with the CxO titles. The best technological solution is worth bupkus if it’s provided by a company that goes under the next business quarter.

Well, interesting discussions, anyhow. Hopefully I’ve illustrated the fact that Eric and Greg were talking past each other, so if they do decide to continue the discussion, it’ll be more productive.

September 26, 2004

quick note on camino

Filed under: geek — alex @ 12:12 pm

Camino is another gecko based Mac OS X web browser. It’s nice to have native cocoa widgets, but there are a few things preventing me from using it. One, adblock won’t work with it. The other is that the close button for the tabs is located on the tab itself. I prefer the firefox approach which is to put the close button in a consistent location.

September 23, 2004

ishmael

Filed under: Uncategorized — alex @ 11:43 pm

A few people have recommended Ishmael by Daniel Quinn to me. Luckily, I don’t know these people very well, and it doesn’t matter whether I respect their intelligence or not.

If you’ve already read this book and you liked it, you may want to stop reading now because I’m probably about to insult you. If you haven’t read the book, continue on, and perhaps I can save you a few hours of pseudo-intellectual frippery.

On the book’s cover is a quote from the Los Angeles Times book review:

“Wonderfully earnest and engaging. Think of Robert Pirsig in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance or B.F. Skinner in Walden Two.

Indeed. As you read Ishmael you will definitely be thinking of Pirsig and how annoyed he must be to have his work compared to a piece of utter dreck.

The central character of Ishmael has the existential blues and finds a teacher who promises to help him find a ballast throughout the unbearable lightness of being. This teacher happens to be a gorilla named Ishmael, and proceeds to teach our protagonist via the Socratic method the reason why our world is the way it is and “how things came to be this way”.

Interesting premise, but I found the discussion throughout the book to be lacking in substance, although I could see how appealing they might seem for the intellectually weak. You know the type — the archetypal self-righteous hippie persona, who is convinced that veganism and candlelight vigils will save the world. This archtype has probably read books such as The Tao of Pooh or The Celestine Prophecy or indeed Ishmael and is convinced that therein lieth Truth and Beauty and if only the rest of the world could be convinced then we’d all live happily ever after singing kum ba ya or something. (aside: I actually own all 3 of those books and even somewhat enjoyed them to a degree. It’s the taking them seriously part that separates me from the morons.)

I suppose I should actually make a valid argument for not liking this book rather than some vigorous hand-waving and clever insults. The problem is, while easy to rip the entire book apart, it would also be tedious and wordy. Every single point that Quinn tries to make is just plain weak, and I can’t motivate myself to apply critical thought to his jumbled mush. So let me just say that he lost me very early on, and from that point, I was a very hostile reader.

Quinn spends the first 50 or so pages introducing the protagonist and giving Ishmael some backstory. Along the way, we learn that the human race is destroying the world, which is a problem recognized by our protagonist, except he doesn’t know why we’re doing it. It’s this question that Ishmael purports to answer, and he starts off in his Socratic method by asking the protagonist to describe the “modern creation myth”.

Obviously, the protagonist (and the reader) scoff at the possibility that We, the most enlightened creatures ever to walk the earth, could possibly have a creation myth. As the protagonist says, that sort of bunk is for the savages, who believe they were all descended from a giant turtle or something. No, not us. Even practicing Christians understand that the book of Genesis is merely an allegory. Most everyone believes that there was a big bang of some sort, everything cooled down, and out of the primordial soup came a few bacteria, and then lo and behold a few billion years later, we have man.

Quinn then practices his most irritating technique, which is to put words in the mouth of the reader. In other words, he prefers to assume that the reader isn’t applying critical thought, and when Quinn says, “this is what you believe”, the reader will respond, “yes, yes of course this is what I believe!”. Witness the following exchange:

“And so your account of creation ends, ‘And finally man appeared’.”

“Yes.”

“Meaning what?”

“Meaning that there was no more to come. Meaning that creation had come to an end.”

“This is what it was all leading up to.”

“Yes.”

“Of course. Everyone in your culture knows this. The pinnacle was reached in man. Man is the climax of the whole cosmic drama of creation.”

“Yes.”

“When man finally appeared, creation came to an end, because its objective had been reached. There was nothing left to create.”

“That seems to be the unspoken assumption.”

“It’s certainly not always unspoken. The religions of your culture aren’t reticent about it. Man is the end product of creation. Man is the creature for whom all the rest was made: this world, this solar system, this galaxy, the universe itself.”

“True.”

“Everyone in your culture knows that the world wasn’t created for jellyfish or salmon or iguanas or gorillas. It was created for man.”

“That’s right.”

Ishmael fixed me with a sardonic eye. “And this is not mythology?”

“Well. . . the facts are facts.”

Now that he has established his “premise” that *all* humans believe that the world was created just for them, he spends the rest of the book explaining why this culturally selfish worldview is exactly what’s wrong with everything today. In case you were thinking to yourself that basing the rest of the book on this intellectual dissembling isn’t quite right, but you didn’t know how to describe what Quinn is doing, let me help you. It’s called the strawman argument, and any intro to logic and reasoning text will have a good explanation for it.

In any case, the entire rest of the book natters on and on like that, with the seemingly retarded protagonist being led to realization after realization by the all wise Ishmael. It was all I could do to refrain from puking, but I felt that I had to finish the book just so I could honestly say that I read it (but once) and never plan on purposely attempting to make myself dumber in that manner ever again.

Long post, but the takeaway message is this: in the future, the amount of intellectual vacuousness for any given person you meet is directly proportional to the level of credence he or she has lent to Ishmael.

September 21, 2004

xavier rudd

Filed under: Uncategorized — alex @ 2:16 pm

So one of the reasons I didn’t sleep at all this weekend was because I went and saw Xavier Rudd play at the Fox Theatre in Boulder on Friday evening. I didn’t get to sleep until 3:15 AM on Saturday, and had to get up at 5:15 to catch my flight.

It was completely worth it.

Xavier Rudd is a one man act from Australia and simply put, he kicks your ass. With his feet, he lays out a 4/4 beat by stomping on a wooden box that basically acts like a bass drum. In his hands, he’s either playing guitar, dobro, slit drum, or djembe, and on top of that, he’s either singing, playing harmonica, or rocking on one of three different didgeridoos.

He plays all of his instruments in an extremely percussive style and layers complex polyrhythmic tunes on top of his basic beat. The amount of energy this man exudes is amazing. If you ever get a chance to see him, do so.

For now, you can purchase his album “Solace” on the iTunes music store. Be warned though that it doesn’t really capture anywhere near the amount of energy of his live show, which you can download from archive.org. To save you some time, here are some direct links:

September 20, 2004

red eye

Filed under: geek — alex @ 10:06 am

Long and interesting weekend with a bunch of good topics to write about, such as Xavier Rudd, Ishmael by Daniel Quinn, and perhaps Chinese family dynamics. However, all those will have to wait until my brain works again.

Some quick stats…

  • number of red eye flights this weekend: 2
  • hours slept (over past three days): 15
  • hours I will spend at work today: 8
  • productive hours at work: 0
  • number of cousins I never knew I had: 8
  • current IQ: ~84

September 15, 2004

a healthy diet

Filed under: dreck — alex @ 12:29 am

Attention all children: I am writing to confirm, that yes, there will be an age where you can just eat ice cream for dinner. However, when you reach that age, you will tend to think of it as “pathetic” rather than “cool”.

I really need to go food shopping.

September 13, 2004

america the beautiful

Filed under: dreck — alex @ 1:36 am

Advance apologies, but this is going to be a long and rambling post. I’ve been wanting to write a short review of the book Blue Highways by William Least Heat Moon, but have been at a loss for words for quite some time. The confluence of a few recent events have helped me frame my discussion, and there are a few things I need to touch upon to get from here to there. So bear with me, and if it seems like I’m wandering, give me a chance, and I’ll try to bring it back together.

I saw Hit and Run play this weekend at Avo’s. They’re a fantastic up and coming bluegrass band, based out of Boulder and Ft. Collins, and they played a couple of great sets. Everyone in that band is quite talented. My only complaint is that the female guitarist, who sings lead vocal in lots of the tunes, doesn’t let her voice off the leash often enough. They played a lot of songs that involve a tight three part harmony, which didn’t afford her a chance to really let loose and belt. But for a few tunes, she let it all hang out and boy howdy, has she got some pipes.

As I was sitting there and enjoying the show, I was continually struck by the pure Americanness of the bluegrass genre, as well as its relationship with another pure American genre of music, jazz. Both have deep ties to the music that the slaves brought with them from Africa. While Americans didn’t invent slavery, they were certainly “good” at it. And for better or for worse, that peculiar institution was a major factor in the development of American culture.

Although it is chic to bemoan the apparent tawdriness of American culture, I still find it unique and interesting and beautiful, no matter what certain highfalutin’ Europeans might think. While we are the land of Oprah and Britney and reality tv, we are also the land of jazz and Hemmingway and Kerouac. Which is why I felt deeply sentimental when Hit and Run asked us to take a moment of silence to remember the 3rd anniversary of 9/11.

Yeah, that.

Cheap television specials aside, think for a minute about what America stands for, and it should get your blood boiling to think that someone like Osama bin Laden or an group like al Qaeda hates our culture so much that they wish to destroy it. No culture or country is perfect, but in the scheme of things, I’d say that America has done a hell of a lot more good for the world than bad. If ever there were a justification for the “war on terror”, it would be the elimination of scum of the earth who claim that America is the great Satan. Like I said, far be it from me to claim that it’s a perfect country or that everything we do is good, but to claim that the majority of our actions are evil is pure lunacy.

But enough overt nationalism for now. This is still primarily a book review of sorts, and peripherally a celebration of Americana, remember?

I’d imagine that a few of you out there in readerland have had the chance to read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Robert Pirsig. If you haven’t, you really ought to. And after you read that, you should read his other book, Lila. I just finished that book recently, and it continues on in the same vein as Zen. Chock full of ideas and observations, I already know that I’ll need to revisit it a few more times before grasping all of the points he was trying to make.

There’s an interesting section where he mentions both Steinbeck and Hemmingway in adjacent paragraphs:

The new intellectualism looked to the “common people” as a source of cultural values rather than to the old Victorian European models. Artists and writers of the fifties, such as Grant Wood, Thomas Hart Benton, James Farrell, Faulkner, Steinbeck and hundreds of others dug deep into the illiterate roots of white American culture to find the new morality, not understanding that it was this white illiterate American culture that was closest to the value of the Indian. The twentieth-century intellectuals were claiming scientific sanction for what they were doing, but the changes that were actually taking places in Amercia were changes toward the values of the Indian.

Even the language was changing from European to Indian. Victorian language was as ornamental as their wallpaper: full of involutions and curlicues and floral patterns that had no practical function whatsoever, and detracted you from whatever content was there. But the new style of the twentieth century was Indian in its simplicity and directness. Hemmingway, Sherwood Anderson, Dos Passos and many others were using a style that in the past would have been thought crude. Now this style was a reincarnation of the directness and honesty of the common man. (p. 320)

And finally we get to my point. I’m a big fan of Steinbeck, and I’ve heard him described as the quintissential American author, but I disagree in a way. It’s Hemmingway that captures the voice and character of the American, with his brusquely elegant style. Short sentences, but not really choppy, each one hitting with full impact — that’s what I think of when I think of the American voice, and Hemmingway captures it like few others.

Travels with Charley is a fantastic book. Steinbeck writes of his travels across America in his faithful truck Rocinante, and when I read it, I felt that I was getting a taste of Americana. I’ve spent my fair share of time on the road in the dusty backwaters of this country, and Steinbeck’s account of the common people really resonated with me.

A few months ago, I picked up Blue Highways by William Least Heat Moon. He was a Native American by blood, a college professor by trade, and his restless soul was able to capture the true voice of Americana. He was fired from his job and his wife wanted to leave him, so he too packed up his truck, Ghost Dancing, and travelled the country to find himself.

I was shocked at how much more poetic and genuine his book seemed compared to Steinbeck’s. He writes in a Hemmginway-esque style, only moreso. Pirsig spends quite a bit of time in Lila discussing the voice of the Native American and its simplicity and direct honesty. Pirsig gives a few quotes and excerpts from famous Indian speeches to bolster his point, but to read an entire novel in that style was mind-blowing. Least Heat Moon seems to pull his words directly from the breast of the good earth and records them on paper so lesser mortals can get a taste of the richness of the land.

If America — the land, the culture, the people — could speak, the result wouldn’t be too far off from what Least Heat Moon was able to capture in Blue Highways.

Were I a high school English teacher, I’d want to teach a course called “A Study in Americana”. The syllabus would look something like this (books to read and discuss in this order):

  • Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Pirsig. You kinda need to read this to get a feeling for Pirsig and his style of writing. You could actually spend a whole semester talking about this book, so it’s kinda a shame that I’m really only using it to build a foundation for the later books.
  • Lila by Pirsig. He spends a lot of time discussing the American voice, as well as presenting a new metaphysics. Again, this book could be the basis for another semester of discussion, and his metaphysics is really the point of why he’s writing, so it’s a shame that I really only would want it for his insights on Native American quality.
  • The Grapes of Wrath by Steinbeck. You really need to read a few Steinbeck books to get a feel for him, and to jump directly into Travels with Charley is to get an incomplete view of narrative talents. Grapes of Wrath would be a good choice in this syllabus since we’re talking about the shaping of the American character.
  • The Sun Also Rises by Hemmingway. You could really use any Hemmingway book here, as the point is to get a grasp of his style of writing. As Travis said in Taming the Star Runner (by Hinton) “his sentences are smooth and cool like Laddie pencils.”
  • Travels with Charley by Steinbeck. A good book in and of itself, so it’s a shame that I’m only using it here to set up the next book.
  • Blue Highways by Least Heat Moon. I think I’ve given enough justification on this one already.

September 9, 2004

security through fucknicity

Filed under: geek — alex @ 10:35 pm

Well, this is bad.

Today, I downloaded a security update from Apple. Among other things, it claimed to fix ftp:

Impact: A race condition that can permit an authenticated remote attacker to cause a denial of service or execute arbitrary code
Description: If the FTP service has been enabled, and a remote attacker can correctly authenticate, then a race condition would permit them to stop the FTP service or execute arbitary code. The fix is to replace the lukemftpd FTP service with tnftpd.

Ok, great. Security holes are bad. So I downloaded the update. The result? ftp is completely broken. Completely and 100% broken. You can’t login. I suppose that one way of ensuring that no one will exploit your ftp server is by distributing a fix that breaks ftp.

From a professional software developer’s point of view, I’m just completely agape at how something like this could have happened. Didn’t anyone over at Apple test this software before shipping it to the world? This is a silly fluke that never needed to happen.

Apple’s one saving grace here is that most users don’t understand that Apple fucked up. They are thinking that the “security update” is to disable ftp, and to encourage the use of sftp. Sorry guys, this is not the case. ftp is still supposed to work. The new binary that Apple shipped is either not linked correctly with libpam or it’s looking in the wrong place for some config files. This has nothing to do with encouraging the use of sftp (although I suppose that is a valid workaround at this point).

September 7, 2004

asian discrimination

Filed under: dreck — alex @ 3:28 pm

Labor Day weekend was long and tiring. More details perhaps later in the week, but for now, suffice to say that an old man (me) can still hang with the young bucks (my brothers and various college-aged friends).

Philip Greenspun posted an interesting link to a page from The Black-White Test Score Gap . Table 12-1 is entitled “Racial and Ethnic Differences in SAT Scores, Selected Four-Year Colleges, 1998 and Early 1990s”. You can see that if you were black (the term used in the book), your entrance requirements for prestigious universities were much more lax compared to a white kid.

Additionally, if you were Asian, you needed a better score than a white kid at most universities.

When I was applying to universities in 1996, having graduated high school in 1997, I only got rejected from one place, that being UC Berkeley. At the time, it greatly annoyed me, since I considered myself a relatively strong candidate. I participated in nerdy events, such as various band groups (marching band, wind ensemble, jazz), as well as Key Club (a service organization sponsored by the Kiwanis Club). I was also a jock, having played football and lacrosse (for a year each) and wrestled. My grade point was solid, and I scored 1410 on the SATs (720 verbal, 690 math).

I’ve long since gotten over it, but seeing this table makes me wonder what my life would be like nowadays if I had only scored a 1412.

(yes, that last paragraph was completely facetious, assuming that my admission slot was taken by whitey (more likely, it was given to an equally strong candidate from California))

Next Page »