Carl Sagan led me to review the existence proof of the 5 perfect Platonic solids as a schoolboy. Beautiful maths but completely useless - this theory caused self-inflicted confusion for thousands of years.

Why is it relevant in a blog about computers and science? Well, the Not Even Wrong Popperian logic brings the relevance to science in an obvious way.

For IT policy makers, it is the sin of starting from a theory and grasping for whatever evidence to back up the theory.

What are they

In order for a solid to be a platonic solid, the figure must use the same regular polygon for all its faces and have the same number of faces meet at each of its vertices. The platonic solids and their regularities were discovered by the Pythagoreans and were initially called the Pythagorean solids.

The language of exclusion is often used in IT - "'web designers' are not real IT professionals"; "SCRUM is better than XP"; "Microsoft is better than Ubuntu"; ... This uncritical approach is not useful, intelligent or professional. Unfortunately this language of exclusion is not confined to IT, being the basis of the "ism's" - racism, etc. The problem is that it is so easy to take the language of exclusion and extrapolate its intentions arbitrarily. So that "engineering excellence" is made to become "elitism".

Linux Magazine Douglas Eadline, Wednesday, December 23rd, 2009

Truth is stranger than fiction. The connection that helped end HPC careers and companies in 2009

Happy Christmas all! Back January!

WIMPs are weakly interacting massive particles hypothesised as a possible solution to the dark matter problem. These particles interact through the weak nuclear force and gravity, and possibly through other interactions no stronger than the weak force. Because they do not interact with electromagnetism they cannot be seen directly, and because they do not interact with the strong nuclear force they do not react strongly with atomic nuclei.

Does the DST control the CSIR, Meraka, the NRF and Innovation Fund as tightly as the department of health controls the MRC?

Are these organizations merely policy, implemented?

The language that I hear the denizens of the CSIR use is of sub-ordinance, yet I think the DST only socks up 15%.

What knd of oversight is there with Mintek, SKA, etc? I can't help feeling these organizations are in need of a rejuvinated mission.

IT-Online has an article (Friday, 18 December 2009, 12:05) about "One of the world's best-known South Africans and billionaire founder of Ubuntu Linux, Mark Shuttleworth". Apparently he is to "step down from his post as CEO of Canonical after five years at the helm."

I have suspected that all is not well on the Ubuntu front. The last release had some show-stopper bugs. But more than that, Windows 7 leaves Ubuntu looking pedestrian - please someone remind me what is the race again, knock M$ or advance o/s? The o/s fan boys seems to have become Apple-boys now?

I think that Ubuntu will move closer to the cloud - this makes sense to me. I do think the future of computing does lie in the cloud anyway. This will entail Ubuntu in close discussion with the Rackspaces, Ciscos, Googles and others of the world. (Not that it is relevant, but I think Microsoft will struggle here.)

There is a downside to all this - while I do think that open source is a great development methodology, and it may dovetail into various projects, the "free" in o/s source has been overcooked. I think it has done no-end of injustice to our country's software engineering portfolio and the ability of government to deliver services based on tech.

Zapiro has a great picture of the former health minister being asked to apologize for her position apropos AIDs / HIV / ARV's - and she does. I think the open source crowd needs to appreciate the vacuum their beliefs have created - yes it is just source, and they may be just programmers. But they are influential and they need to take responsibility in the Kent Beck sense.

While I have no doubt that Mark Shuttleworth's influence with the mandarins of the DST is minimal, they still followed his lead, albeit grudgingly and with little recognition. No doubt they did not come close to his vision, but I speculate. Certainly Shuttleworth maintained a measure of influence siting on Mbeki's ICT advisory panel as he did, with eminences like Carli Fiorina.

However, I think that the o/s fanboys have neither the gumption nor the character and insight to see where their beliefs have taken our mainstream government thinkers. They will no doubt raise all sorts of trivial defenses, and not see the bigger picture.

We are yet to see whether the Canonical / Ubuntu business plan changes, and how it changes. However, if it does move towards a more plausible financial model - and ironically I can see one in the cloud - I do think that a clear break should be made with the past.

There was a scene in "Invictus", the Eastwood/Freeman exploration of democracy and PR, where Mandela hands Pienaar a copy of Invictus. According to Wikipedia, it was in fact "The Man in the Arena" from a speech given by Teddy Roosevelt at the Sorbonne in Paris, France on April 23 1910.

I thought the poem was marvellous, but the speech caught my eye. Here is an extended passage from the text:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

For completeness here is Invictus by the English poet William Ernest Henley, written in 1875 and published in 1888:

Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.

Some time ago I started thinking about metrics to determine how [competent | relevant | successful | whatever ] our science policy was. (Some of you may have landed here by chance - you are probably looking for this.

I had to increase the scope of the project from science. The problem is determining what good is - ie "competent", "relevant", etc.

This blog is based philosophically on Pauli's Not Even Wrong and Peter Woit's so-named blog. Skepticism is what I believe we need to treat a whole host of offerings from our politicians. Yet skepticism has become a swear word. Here The BBC put the record straight. By Justin Rowlatt (Thursday17 December 2009)

The word "sceptic" is in danger of becoming a term of abuse. A "climate sceptic" is used to mean someone who rejects the evidence of global warming. But scepticism is actually a healthy instinct and should be celebrated.

We are lucky here in Britain to be home to the most august scientific institution in the world, the Royal Society. It celebrates its 350th anniversary next year. Its motto is "nullius in verba" which means "take nobody's word for it" - which is pretty much a charter for scepticism.

It is a fitting motto, because healthy scepticism is the foundation of good science.

The urge to question accepted truths, to doubt received wisdom, to investigate things for yourself, is the basis of scientific enquiry.

So let's not damn people for being sceptical of the climate science... unless, that is, they don't make the effort to make a reasonable examination of the evidence.

The opinion polls suggest that almost half the people in Britain are not persuaded that man is causing global warming.