Salocin

I went to the optician today. I don’t wear glasses, and my desire to get my eyes tested is probably driven by a combination of the fact that my company will pay for (most of) the cost of the check-up, and a pathological need for attention. That and the occasional late-night headache when I’ve been staring at a computer screen for the better part of 12 hours and obtained 90% of my calories for the day from the sugar I put in my coffee and the remaining 10% from stress-related chewing of the fingernails.

I went to a Vision Express in Holborn – a clean place with more staff than customers and a minimalist look a bit like the modern frames that cost more than could be justified even if they were made of solid platinum.

The staff/customer ratio played in my favour and they saw me straight away, despite having an appointment schedule that looked fully booked.

So they stare in your eye with a little light, and give very technical instructions such as, “look to the right” and “read the bottom line on that chart over there”. Then they make you wear The Goggles – a pair of frames designed such that nobody will ever want to steal them, and they slot lenses into them over and over while asking you to read the same letters over and over, or describe which of two circles appears the clearest.

It turns out that there’s really nothing wrong with my eyes, apart from a case of astigmatism and long-sightedness so mild that it’s at the very bottom of the range of prescriptions available. Staring at computer screens for long periods of time will tire me, but then it would, wouldn’t it?

The optician recommended I wear glasses if I’m going to be staring at a computer screen for hours. I lied and claimed that I didn’t stare at the screen for long periods of time, thus earning myself the right to be reincarnated as a dung beetle or something.

It’s just that choosing frames is one of those fashion decisions I’m doomed to get wrong no matter how much thought I put into it.

So here I am, typing this in, staring at the screen. What the hell, I figure the slight blurriness probably helps me get by from day to day anyway.

The number 52 bus pulled up at the stop just a few yards from my front door, and I immediately knew there would be a problem. There didn’t seem any way for the dozen people waiting at the stop to get into what little space was left.

“The driver won’t open the door”, I thought.

Less than a minute later, I was in the bus, along with everyone else who had been waiting. People squeezed to make room, and enough space was made for everyone.

The next stop was Ladbroke Grove tube station. There were at least 50 people waiting to get onto the bus.

“The driver won’t open the door”, I thought.

Unfortunately, the dejà vu didn’t stop there.

A couple of minutes later, I was becoming one with the side of the bus, as the press of bodies crushed me into the panelling below the stairs. My right hand was jammed behind my back, holding onto my laptop bag with the tips of three fingers, and I was standing far too close to a middle-aged woman with hair that indicated she had stuck an appendage into a wall socket at a young age. Possibly her tongue.

The driver didn’t bother stopping until we got to Notting Hill Gate, where most of us were freed before one of us invoked the international court of human rights.

At Notting Hill Gate, I took the Central Line into London, but that’s another story.

This journey, one which is repeated on a semi-regular basis, has me thinking that there must be a better way. However, as the London congestion charge creeps inexorably upwards in price and outwards in scope, the number of people relying on this transport infrastructure will only increase.

Some simple improvements would help: Better enforcement of no-stopping zones during rush hour, towing away of obstructively-parked cars, more intelligent timing on traffic lights (Ladbroke Grove really needs this), enforcement of bus lanes, lower-impact roadworks, intelligent and enforced timing of bus departures from depots and upgrades to the London transport infrastructure.

But efficiency gains will only allow us to use the resources we have to a greater extent – there’s a hard upper limit on how many people the current transport infrastructure can handle, and I don’t think we’re very far from that limit. An increase beyond that will require either significant new technology, or a transformation in the way in which people move around London. This will not be achieved through a new congestion charge – all that does is redistribute commuters from one overstretched method of transport to another.

In the meantime, maybe I can get more padding in my computer bag so it doesn’t quite cut into my legs so much when it’s crushed between me, the wall, and a 200-volt hairstyle.

Rambler walks from Land's End to John O'Groats. Naked. Gets arrested. A lot.

Everyone's talking about Google's self-imposed censorship in China - the debate has taken on the usual attributes of hysteria and irrationality as people with more ideals than sense pass judgement before considering the alternatives.

Judging from the googleblog's transcript of google's testimony to the US House of Representatives, Google picked the most sensible of the paths available to it.

Go back a few years, and google was facing the total loss of its service in China. It was becoming impossible for anyone in China to connect to the Google server, and even when Google was available from China, certain queries didn't seem to make it through (say, Tiananmen Square, for example). Because of this filtering, the Google service in China was degraded, and Google themselves had no idea how their search results were being altered.

So Google were faced with a choice - either stand by their guns, be the defenders of absolute free speech, and have the Chinese government sabotage their service, or create a separate Chinese Google service, which could be selectively censored according to the wishes of the Chinese government, but maintaining a quality of service Google can be proud of in every other respect. What's more, the Chinese language service of the Google.com website remains available and uncensored, it's just firewalled out of existence from inside the country.

Ultimately, a group of idealists criticised Google for not making a stand. Fortunately, Google's idealists are smarter than their critics - they realised that it was better to improve access to information as a whole than to be excluded from the country entirely, and that if some censorship in the near term was the price that had to be paid, then so be it.

The extended consequences of Google's decisions are that censorship of the internet in China is now extremely visible, and that everyone's talking about it, putting renewed pressure on the Chinese government to adapt to a world where information is becoming increasingly difficult to control.

What Google's critics would have liked is for the company to be a bridgehead into China, forcing the completely free exchange of information in the country. This form of coercion would have backfired. What's more, it isn't right to put such expectations on a company - to ask them to make decisions that will hugely reduce their future profitability and negatively affect the wealth of all of their shareholders in order to make a political point - that is the province of our elected representatives.

Imprisoned Romainan woman wins court order forcing her boyfriend to bring her better presents while she serves 4 years for theft.

Rumor has it that Joaquin Phoenix learned to sing and play the guitar in preparation for this part, that Reese Witherspoon learned to sing and play the auto-harp for her part, that both were chosen by the real Johnny Cash and June Carter Cash as the actors they wanted playing them on film, and that both underwent six months of vocal training so as to be able to carry off the musical portion of the role without dubbing.

It's hard to tell if this is what makes this biopic quite so compelling, or if the life and trials of Johnny Cash would have been as remarkable had these actors not put as much effort into finessing their performances. Regardless, the quality of their acting contributes to the high quality of this film and their committment to these roles pays off.

I have never been a Johnny Cash fan, and prior to this movie, I knew nothing about his life other than the period and country it was set in. The reality of Johnny Cash's life has therefore never really made it into my little world, or inspired me in the past. This film, however, is as poignant in the telling as the most carefully crafted fiction, and I think the actors deserve a large part of the credit for this. The director, cinematographer and other specialists who put together the look and feel of the film contributed a deft touch which allows us to easily suspend the real world for the duration of the experience. It is their skill and the quality of their finished product that has brought this story to my attention, and I'm quite grateful for that because it's definitely affected me in a way most movies don't.

From what little I've been able to glean about Johnny Cash in the short time I've spent researching him, (most notably from an interview at achievement.org), I note that his relationship from his father doesn't seem to be exactly the same when he talks about it as it is in the movie, but granting some artistic license to allow the filmmakers to make a point, the story remains inspirational, aspirational and emotional.

The film charts the rise of Johnny's career, up to the point where he marries June Carter. This journey is far from easy, and rather than showing us a hero overcoming one obstacle after another, the perspective given is far more human. With the kind of nochalant cruelty that only the real world can demonstrate, the various pressures faced by the singer mount, each culminating in turn and causing elements of his life to break down, often due to mistakes he himself makes as he learns how to cope with fame, solitude, and the ghosts of past mistakes. His recovery is all the most inspirational in that it is not a show of strength, or a heroic shouldering of burdens, but a personal transformation that comes only after having gone down a long dark tunnel and finally found a light at the end of it, sufficiently realistic and human to strike a chord.

Ultimately, Reese Witherspoon steals the film without seeming to do so - her performance seems sometimes self-effacing, as the camera turns to Joachim Phoenix's central character and exposes the peaks and troughs of those years. The troughs seem all the deeper, however, for the absence of Witherspoon's soothing June Carter. When she is around, and he is in her affections, however restrained, it is hard to believe that the worse could come to pass. Hers is a masterful performance that deserves recognition, perhaps even more so than Phoneix's brilliant central role.

The film grew on me over the two days after I had watched it, and I found myself thinking about it quite a lot - that's an unusual occurrence given that much of today's fare is the artistic equivalent of bread and water. I'm much better at making fun of movies I don't like than I am at giving credit to those that stand above the rest, which puts me in a difficult position here. I feel uncomfortable using superlatives to describe a film that achieves so much through deftness and understatement, so I'll say only this : While I will never be a huge fan of Johnny Cash's music (I've tried, I like it, but it's never going to be a staple of my collection), I think I've become a fan of the man, and I have this film to thank for that.

Lives of great men all remind us
We can make our lives sublime
And departing leave behind us
Footprints in the sands of time.

-- Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, 1855

Paris Hilton's personal belongings have found their way into the hands of a broker, who is selling them for $20m.

What interesting times we live in.

It's interesting to note that, according to the democratic processes favoured by most of the western nations, Hamas is now the official, democratically elected representative party of the Palestinian people. As noted by the BBC, this poses the western countries a bit of a dilemma. Do you recognise them, despite having labelled them a terrorist organisation and refused to deal with them in the past? Or do you refuse to recognise them, thus painting yourself in all the bright colours of a hypocrite after having pushed so hard for elections in the Middle East?

The main thrust of commentary around this issue seems to search for positive angles on the question, and it's fair to say that there are a number of benefits that come from having Hamas represent the Palestinian people, not least the pressure this naturally creates for the organisation to alter its behaviour, become more acceptable as a negotiating partner, and capitalise on its position as legitimate representative of Palestinian interests. A return to a bombing campaign can only undermine their newfound potential for legitimacy.

It is even possible to take the party's intransigent stance to date and look at that as a contributing factor to the feasability of a solution, as commented in Haaretz on January 31st :

While I recognize the potentially explosive situation with Hamas, I humbly submit that Hamas' victory may very well prove to be beneficial to all concerned parties. It is common wisdom that a peace deal acceptable to Likud is acceptable to all in the US and Israel. Similarly, a peace deal acceptable to Hamas will be acceptable to all in the Arab and Muslim world
-- Muqtedar Khan, Haaretz, Jan 31 2006

Another hidden facet of this election, which provides both comfort and a cause for concern, is that Hamas do not appear to have as clear a majority as at first appears. This is because Palestinians are unaware of the failings of democracy, and the strategies that must be invoked in order to ensure an adequate deployment of one's votes. The Israel-Palestine Center for Research and Information published the following on their news page on January 31st 2006.

In the final outcome of the Palestinian elections the Hamas party took 74 seats of the 132 available seats. This equals 56%. The division of the seats between the national lists and the district lists were 29 from the national list and 45 in the district lists (74 seats in total).
 
The hidden statistics paint a very different figure. On the national list the Hamas received 43.94% of the vote meaning that 56.06% of the Palestinian voters did not vote for the Hamas on the national list.
 
On the district lists Hamas gained 68.18% of the seats with non-Hamas candidates taking on 31.82% of the seats. But in reality, in the districts Hamas candidates received only 36.45% of the votes while non-Hamas candidates received 63.54% of the votes.
 
In reality, a clear majority of Palestinians voted against the Hamas. What happened is that Hamas presented a unified list in each district while Fatah and others had a multiplicity of candidates which caused great divisions. While this explanation does not alter the results of the elections, it is somewhat more comforting to recognize that the voice of the Palestinian electorate did not give a majority of support to Hamas.

This is a concern because it means that Palestinians are now represented by an organisation that, as a group, they did not pick. On the other hand, it's a relief to know that Hamas does not have the popular vote in Palestine (i.e. a majority of Palestinians do not think it is appropriate for an organisation that represents the use of violence to further its aims to run the country). Western countries should not be too quick to cast aspersions on the quality of the Hamas victory, however, as this form of democratic strategising is far more common and far more finely tuned in our countries than in theirs (see, for example, gerrymandering). A rejection of Hamas as a legitimate representative of the Palestinian people would remain extremely hypocritical.

As is almost always the case in the Israel-Palestine conflict, the prognosticators are falling all over themselves to predict what will happen next. The reality is that this is no mathematical equation, and few people - either observing the problem or deep in the heart of it - have sufficient knowledge and insight to forecast the next moves on this blood-stained chessboard.

For my part, as long as the news is concerned with whether Hamas can change, and isn't about another bomb in Israel or the latest Palestinian home bulldozed, then I am grateful for the respite, and I am sure that the people in the region are too.

Update 03.02.2006 - Found a link to Scott Adams's insight - it's hard to do things that make your neighbour want to kill you when you first have to sit in a highly-visible, easily-targeted public building in a well-publicised location and vote on it.

Saudi man's parents force him to marry four wives. Now in psychiatric treatment.

Americans have a way with words. By and large, when you hear English spoken in the US (leaving out obvious exceptions like university lectures and politics), the vocabulary used by many native speakers is so limited it's the auditory equivalent bad sushi - it keeps repeating on you. They balance this by being very creative about a small number of extremely unusual and interesting words - like Rubbernecking.

It's a word that manages to work on several levels at once - elegant in it's vulgarity, vicious and scornful while remaining descriptive.

It describes an action: bending one's head to see something as one moves past it. It has an implied meaning: Slowing down all the traffic behind you as your speed drops. It goes so much further than that.

It inspires a visual image of someone with a strange deformity, a person with a rubber neck - a physical reflection of the societal deformity that inspires this disturbing obsession with the misfortune of others. A deformity which will be witnessed a second time as these people reach their destinations and start their first sentence with as graphical (and possibly enhanced) a description of what they witnessed as they can manage, their colleagues or family listening with the same gruesome fascination manifested by the passers-by on the motorway.

Calling people rubberneckers is also derogatory.

I like that. It feels appropriate.

When I finally passed the broken-down car on the other side of the M4 as I made my way to work this morning, the traffic in front of me suddenly cleared and I went from an almost stationary position in traffic to an empty motorway.

All because people needed to see. Which is ironic, since all there was to see was a stationary car with it's hazard lights flashing and thousands upon thousands of cars stuck behind it, trying to get into London.

Goes to show the damage one single automotive malfunction can cause : for every 1000 cars, 45 minutes lost, which is 750 hours (94 working days) per 1000 cars. Not to mention the added fuel cost, pollution and general irritation caused. And there were many multiples of 1000 cars stuck in traffic behind that breakdown - entire years of work lost in a single morning.

Given the cost of that, you'd think they'd make better cars, or work out a way to prevent a single breakdown from causing such damage. But for that to work, someone would have to bear the cost of the disruption - instead, the cost is spread over many individuals, many companies, and an environment for which nobody is responsible. Diluted in this way, the cost to each company is sufficiently low that it's not worth their while to take the necessary measures to prevent such things from happening, other than the government-mandated automotive MOT test, which clearly didn't help this morning.

Every day, some disruption or other costs travellers on the M4 at least 15 minutes, regardless of which direction you're driving in. People adapt, they suck up the cost individually, they leave 15 minutes earlier, arrive home 30 minutes later. After all - nobody has to pay for family time, it's free, so if such disruptions are going to cut into something, personal time is the soft target. If it cut into work, there would be consequences, and these would be borne by individuals, not by the cause of the delay.

Regardless of the lip service paid to family values and work/life balance, when push comes to shove, it's unreasonable to assume that a deterioration in (for example) traffic conditions is going to get compensated for by employers - it's the family time it cuts into. While that's perfectly understandable given the way things are set up, where does it lead?

If we're stuck on the motorway, and we're not going to see our friends and family any time soon anyway, and we've been made to wait for the last 30 minutes in traffic, we might as well take a good look at the moron who wasn't paying attention, or the car that broke down and prevented thousands of people from getting home. Why should we try so hard to avoid rubbernecking when in reality, whether we take a good look or not isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference? I can change my own behaviour, but the group dynamic isn't changing any time soon, and my trying to do the right thing is a single drop of water in the desert - an effort with no result. Why bother?

This morning, the broken down car was a BMW (German engineering eh?), it was stationary in the fast lane (I don't think BMW drivers know about the other lanes) and the driver was a 30-ish guy who didn't look the slightest bit disturbed that his breakdown was holding up a queue of traffic several miles long, as the cars squeezed past in the one remaining lane.

I didn't realise that was what was holding up traffic until I was actually driving past it, since it was on the other carriageway, so I didn't get a chance to slow down for a better look, but since everyone else did, I feel left out of the societal movement. I didn't get to add my 2 seconds of additional delay to the thousands of cars behind me. I'm sure I'll get my chance on the way home tonight.