Turth

10. October, 2010

In another blog, I read a comment “I want the ‘truth‘.” Uh huh. The “Truth.” What is “The Truth”? A little thought experiment.

A police officer walks along a house. Suddenly, a shot is fired. Three seconds later, the officer kicks in the door and finds a woman, dead, with a black hole in her chest and a man with a gun in his hands.

Question: Did the man kill the woman?

What is the “truth” here? A whole ago, I read in the Perry Rhodan Sci Fi series: There are four levels of “truth”. One is called the absolute or objective truth. We can never hope to glimpse at it.

Then there is the social truth. It is what a whole society believes true. For example, a society can believe that stealing is bad.

On the next level, we have group truth. Groups define themselves by being different from all other groups. This also means they have their own beliefs about truth. Even if society believes stealing is bad, a group of street workers will have a more detailed view on the topic. In effect, the group shares the same ideal but they have their own beliefs how to solve the issue.

The last level is the personal truth. As a member of a group, a person can believe something that (s)he personally would reject. An example here could be to steal to belong to the local gang – or to risk being their punching ball.

If we return to the thought experiment, what are the various levels of truth here?

The objective truth will know what really has happened and why. What the man thought at any moment. What the woman thought. What happened to her as she died. How the worms in the earth felt as the police officer stomped over the flagstones of the path leading to the door.

There is no way to know these facts – ever. The woman is dead and beyond questioning. The man was in a state of mind that could be described as “temporary lunacy”. Even if he knew what he had thought, he probably won’t be able to tell us – or he might even have serious reasons to lie. The police officer didn’t see the act, only the aftermath. And if you know a way to talk to worms, there are a couple of people in Stockholm waiting for you.

Social truth dictates that the man has killed the woman. Just three facts are enough: Man and woman present, man has gun, woman is dead. Did you notice that the gun was smoking? I didn’t write that. If you remember that scroll up and read the sentence again. No smoking gun. There is no indication that a shot was fired but social truth still says “he has killed her.” Remember next time you read “someone committed a crime.”

On the group level, truth depends on your peer group. Feminists: Surely the man is a monster, serial killer or worse and must be sentenced to death. Machos: That bitch probably teased him till he snapped. Any firearms association: If she had a gun, she could have defended herself. Police: There are too many guns around. Psychologists: Another life lost because of ignorance of the human mind. Cleaning crews: Blood is hell to clean up. Teachers: What will happen to the poor children? Journalist: Is there a story in there or is it just another homicide?

On the personal level, truth depends on your experience. Have you lost someone due to a crime? Then your reaction will be completely different from someone who is just enjoying this thought experiment. If you have lost someone, you will think about the grief and sadness while someone else will think “Hey, this is cool. I’ve never thought of that.”

This will then influence how you remember this text. Memories are always linked to emotions. If I fail to evict some strong emotion in you, you will forget. The brain is trained to keep an eye on the important stuff (which can kill you) and forget about the boring things ASAP.

So what is the truth about the story above? What has happened? As we know, the man is likely not to know or not to tell. Some ideas:

  1. The man has killed the woman
  2. The man just found the already dead woman and the killer is in the backyard where he fired a shot
  3. A sniper has killed the woman and the man just drew his gun to defend himself
  4. The whole scene is part of a movie about a man who is accused to have killed a woman
  5. It could be a computer game
  6. Or a scene from a book
  7. The man is holding a book in his hand which has a gun on the cover
  8. The whole thing is just part of some thought experiment

The “truth” is a lie. We can only hope to get ever closer to something that is out of reach because our brain wasn’t designed to contain it.

 


When to micromanage

11. December, 2009

When it comes to work, there are two extremes: There are those people who are enthusiastic and, once started, can hardly be stopped and there are the ones which think “Monday, 9:00am, and the weeks still isn’t over”.

Micro-managing the former will make them quit (or as Joel Spolsky put it: “Doesn’t micromanagement turn smart people into robots?“). Not micro-managing the latter will result in no work being done.

Which explains nicely why it’s a pleasure/pain to work with some craftsman: Some of them love their job, they delight in producing a perfect result which will make the customer happy. And the other ones can’t be bothered.


Why New Technology is so Complicated

14. May, 2009

Ever wondered why the new cool thing is so complicated? There is a very good article which explains just that. In a nutshell: When the technology is invented, it’s invented by experts in the field. They have toyed with this idea for years, refined it, applied it in numerous projects and honed it until something new and useful came out.

Next come the early adoptors which are usually also experts in the field. They are always searching for a new, better solution and they are actively searching. The also have the background to understand what a new technology means for them, since they have the experience.

After that comes the normal user. The normal user has little idea what is going on, she just “wants to solve this simple problem.” The documentation (so far only written by experts for experts) mean little to her since she simply doesn’t have the background. She also doesn’t want to become an expert, this is usually going to be a single-strike project, so there is no intention to spend any time on learning the technology.


Fighting Child Pr0n on the Net

8. May, 2009

Child abuse is something I keep an eye on and about which I have a strong opinion. In the last few weeks, German politicians discovered the topic. Foremost, our Minister for Family, Ursual von der Leyen, started a crusade to implement Internet filter technology at the ISP level to “fight” child pr0n. Note my subtle attempt to influence your opinion by using “crusade” which means to go to a foreign place, lay waste to the land, kill everyone there, in the name of all that is Good and Just.

Let’s see what the new law is trying to achieve. If you happen to click on a link that leads to a child pr0n site, you’ll see a stop page instead, explaining that you were about to see illegal content. While she insists that this will have no further consequences (especially, the time and IP will not be logged, the minister promised in a radio interview), there are already voices who want that data. Other voices already start crying “why don’t you block pirate sites, too?” We Germans know all too well how great censorship works, how easily it starts small, how fast it grows and what kind of persons it attracts. Not convinced? Let me give you some examples.

You’re browsing the web, follow an ad, and suddenly, you see the stop page. No harm done. Unless some clever guy at the ISP is making a private copy of the stop server’s log. And calls you the next day (since he can easily figure out who you are), threatening you to tell everyone about your disgusting character. Think about a moment how you would defend against such an attack. How would you explain to your wife/husband if it wasn’t you answering the phone?

Everyone knows how to secure a WLAN. Well, everyone, who knows more about WLAN other than how to buy one. So there are still many unprotected WLANs out there and guess who will go to jail after a criminal has used one of them to download lots of child pr0n. If it’s not a WLAN, then you’re better an expert in protecting your computer against viruses and remote control exploits. I mean, everyone is. There are no bot-nets out there, counting thousands of computers, where a criminal can do anything they damn well please, knowing full well that all the blame will go to the fool who owns the PC.

Or you’re like me and find child pr0n disgusting. Only, even downloading such an image is a criminal offense. So … when I would stumble upon something, I could not report that to the authorities because they would first arrest me, before considering going through to the tedious and probably futile process of trying to figure out who owns the domain where I found that stuff. If I would claim that a German domain contains child pr0n, the ISP would have to take down the site without being allowed to check whether my claims are true! If they did, the police would have to arrest them! Otherwise, the owner of the site could argue in court why he was being prosecuted and they were not. Before the law, all are equal, are they not?

To protect the people working at the German ISPs, the list of blocked sites must be secret. If that single sever is not working correctly (and how would you check that without going to jail?), this ISP is going to have a whole lot of very upset customers who suddenly see stop pages for legal sites. Or, the other way around, the server is not blocking something it should. How do you argue in court that a site which should have been on the list wasn’t blocked? It’s a secret list, you must not look at it!

So instead of spending money to create a help line for abused children, helping mothers and fathers to leave an abusive other, making the topic a non-taboo, so we could speak about it, politicians propose that we just don’t see the problem anymore. Sounds like a simple solution. We all know how good a simple solution sounds and how rarely they work out.

No criticism without a better proposal. If you don’t like thought-provoking ideas, this is not for you. Go away. Don’t read on. You’ve been warned.

All laws making temporary ownership of a small number of images must be revoked. Anyone on the planet must be allowed to report these findings without having to fear any kind of prosecution. No Internet censorship. Instead, we block access to domains which are run by registrars that boast not to comply to any law. That’s simple because we can block by IP (the list above would contain site names and as someone who knows what that means technically, that gives me nightmares). Anything left over must then come from a law-abiding registrar and those can and will take down such sites. Furthermore, they can quickly turn over the details about the person behind the offering, so they can be prosecuted like any other criminal. That doesn’t even need a lawyer or judge or court, anyone working for the ISP could check the site (because they won’t go to jail anymore), see what is going on and pull the plug within minutes. Before the police could hang up the phone, they’d have the name and address of the owner of the site and half an hour later, someone would have to answer some serious questions. And even if that person couldn’t be found, the site would be gone  forever, for anyone on the planet (instead of just for the 80 million Germans).

To find such sites, I’d turn to locked up, incurable offenders. Since they are incurable, they are effectively locked up forever. Why not use that as an advantage and, with their prior consent, give them a computer, a fat Internet connection and a well-loaded credit card? They could even locate material in closed user groups and fast-flux-networks, something a filter list will never be able to do. Everyone would get what they want. Cynical, but still true.

Radical? Maybe … but how would you call a “solution” which leaves the victims to suffer and the offenders free to cause more pain? Because that’s, in a nutshell, what the current proposal is all about. It’s probably a pure coincidence that such an important issue comes up close to the reelections.

Next time you see someone pointing and screaming at something, remember that they point at themselves with three fingers.


Why aren’t IDEs intuitive?

8. May, 2009

Mark asked a simple question on stackoverflow.com:

This is stupid. Why can’t an IDE be intuitive enough that you can “good” at it immediately, and “great” after picking up a few shortcuts?

My answer is: Because computers aren’t powerful enough for this, today.

In the most simple case, the IDE would need several ways to layout the data on the screen, it would need several predefined keymaps with shortcuts (because different people do different work in the same IDE) and it would need a way to figure out who is using at right now to switch defaults. You would need to write two times the amount of code to implement all this because some thing are they way they are because the rest of the code is the way it is. IDEA can’t compile in the background, Eclipse can. To allow both ways of working, you would have to rewrite parts of the compiler API, the way the compiler talks to the UI, and in the IDEA case, you’d probably have to change the compiler itself.

Taking this one step further, the IDE would need to learn how the user works, what (s)he cares for, how (s)he thinks. The user is always resizing the console after starting the program? Let’s do it for her. It irritates the user that the IDE hangs for the fraction of a second when the IDE switches to the debug view? Let’s load the debug code in advance in the many spare seconds while we wait for anything to do.


On Uniqueness

3. April, 2009

It’s not the individual strengths and flaws which make a human unique, it’s the combination. Which is why an expert, who knows many strengths and flaws, knows all humans.


The Bad Old Times

13. February, 2009

If you ever need a convincing argument for someone who strongly believes that “in former times, everything was better”, try this: Ask them if they believe in the Greek Philosophy, the principles of logic, deduction and society on which todays wealth and freedom are built. If they do, let them know this:

“The Greeks considered it normal for any man to be drawn to the beauty of a boy—just as much if not more than to that of a woman.”

As with everything, the past is not better in every respect than today and vice versa. That said, we do learn from past mistakes and try to avoid them and more often than not, we succeed. This also is human nature.

Source: Pederasty in ancient Greece


The Cost of Safety

6. February, 2009

Worried about your safety? The safety of your wife/daughter/son/house/car/whatever? If you did worry about something like that in the past, when considering options to make something more safe, did you consider the cost?

Paul Graham wrote a nice essay “Artists Ship” (after the remark by Steve Jobs). Please ignore his “only programmers love to work hard”. The rest of the argument is very convincing. When people talk about “improving” some situation (crime rate, child abuse, revenue streams), they often propose solutions but there is little to no discussion about the cost of said “solution”.

So we want to protect our children against molesters. Fair enough. Only in the discussion, you can’t argue with reason because it’s so emotional. People don’t know anything about the reasons why someone becomes a pedophile or how (and if at all) this can be treated. They want a “solution”, completely ignorant of the cost. It’s a fact that “better” solutions (which will catch more violators) will always harm more innocent people.

Let’s look at a related case. Make up your mind about this case: “Julie Amero, a 40-year-old substitute teacher from Connecticut is facing up to 40 years in prison for exposing her seventh grade class to a cascade of pornographic imagery.” (more). Guilty? Innocent? What’s “exposing” supposed to mean here? Did she show them intentionally? Such a simple case and so many questions …

Say I want to write a program that automatically searches the Internet for child pr0n and sends alerts to the authorities. I can’t. It’s not possible anymore in any western country because I could neither test my program nor use it: Even the download of child pr0n is illegal. It’s illegal before a human can see it. I wonder how all those web filters work … Maybe they build them in a country where child abuse is not illegal.

So you like to watch pr0n but don’t want to pay? The Internet is full of “free” ware. But downloading “good.jpg” might get you into jail, depending on what you might find in the image afterwards. Guilty? Innocent?

Most computers on the Internet are vulnerable to all kinds of attacks. It’s ridiculously simple to spread viruses and worms which effectively take over your computer. Who is guilty when a cracker puts illegal pictures on your PC? You, because you didn’t understand the technology? You, because it is too hard to catch the cracker? You, because the prosecution doesn’t understand the technology, either? You, because the jury can’t follow the explanations of the experts anymore?

On the other hand, a clever pervert might infect his computer deliberately, so he can always say “it was the virus!”. With todays paint software, how hard is it to replace the head of an adult with one of a child and reduce the cup size? How hard is it to prove that the picture is real? How about pencil drawings? You do know that most paint programs come with “artistic filters”.

Such topics tend to become witch hunts where anyone can potentially be as guilty as we want them to be. Justice isn’t blind to protect the successful criminal, she’s blind in order to protect the innocent against prejudice.

So next time, you ask for a new rule, think about the cost, first.

Btw. During the research for this article, I googled for “teacher england hacker child porn“. Condemn me.

Links (in the order in which I stumbled over them):