Self-confidence

Self-confidence is a funny thing. Some people seem to have so much of it; in many cases, rather too much, I suspect. Most people seem to have at least some; it's part of being a person.

I never really seem to have had any. In every facet of my life, I constantly sub-consciously assume that I'm not good enough, or that I'm fucking up, or whatever, even if it is empirically not the case. I have this with work, with my social life, with everything, really. It's particularly nasty socially; I always worry that I'm annoying people and that I'm imposing by being around them, for example. I can't even conceive of, say, holding and asking people to a party; the very idea terrifies me. And of course it plays havoc on my love-life, or lack thereof.

The worst of it is that I can, in many cases, even at the same time as I'm feeling this stuff, know that it's irrational, that it's stupid, that if only I could ignore it things would be better. And yet, this does me no good; I can't ignore it, even when I know it's ridiculous.

I suspect that self-confidence, even unwarranted self-confidence, is a major factor in being successful in life. And it seems to be an innate thing; either you have it or you don't. It doesn't seem to be based hugely on experience, as such, and, if not immutable, is at least very, very difficult to change.

It's a pity that no-one has come up with a lifestyle drug, in the same category as, say, Viagra or that anti-hair-loss thing, to deal with this. They'd make billions. A lot of people say that alcohol helps them, but I suspect that it actually helps them overcome their inhibitions, which seems to be a slightly different thing. I know, at any rate, that alcohol does not help me; if I drink a lot, it actually gets worse. I actually wonder is the problem I have with this that common; it certainly doesn't seem to be and a lot of people don't seem to get it conceptually at all.

Anyway, just felt like writing a bit about this...

And Jobs created the iPad, and Ballmer was consumed with rage

One of the odder memes going around right now is that while the iPad is suitable only for consumption of media, Windows-based tablets are appropriate for creation. You see it quoted chapter and verse wherever there is a discussion of iPads as compared to other tablets, especially Windows tablets, generally as an article of faith and without qualification.

Now, what is all of this about, I wonder?

Its origins aren't particularly obscure; while often attributed to Steve Ballmer, it actually came from another Microsoft person present at a conference. It wasn't really qualified at all; there was no real idea given as to what it was meant to mean.

So what does it mean, then? Well, the whole thing is a bit strange. For a start it's unclear what creation means; does it signify any productive work, or only things like, say, writing, drawing and so forth? Does Microsoft really believe that the iPad is merely a glorified PMP? What can one create on a Windows tablet which cannot be created on an iPad?

I've tried and I've tried, but the only thing I can come up with is that programming on a Windows tablet would be more practical than on an iPad. More practical, but would one really want to do it, all the same? Somehow, I can't see it; it seems impractical.

Beyond that, it would appear to merely be a piece of propaganda, but one which for some reason people have picked up on in their droves. I suppose that, while essentially meaningless, it sounds very impressive, and possibly also subconsciously picks up on the popular idea that Macs are for creative types.

The strangest bit is, well, how much 'creation' does the average person actually do on their home computer, anyway? Computers are generally used by the average person either in work (with important exceptions, not a great arena for tablets of any stripe right now, and in any case Windows tablets in most cases wouldn't have a significant advantage) or for browsing the Internet, watching video, playing games and so forth. Even if the "iPad is for consumption, Windows tablet is for creation" thing was true, and I'm fairly sure it isn't, the iPad wouldn't seem to be at much of a marketing disadvantage anyway.

I am pretty sure, though, that the creation/consumption thing was not something thought up at the spur of the moment to answer a question. I'd say it was, well, created, perhaps even on a Windows tablet, by clever marketing types, who saw that, while not really meaning anything, it is superficially impressive and can thus be used as a stick to bash the iPad.

And this post was, for what it's worth, created on an iPad, with the help of a Bluetooth keyboard.

Amusing iPad display glitch

After running an iPhone app, the little '1x' switch for choosing iPhone app zoom level has stayed in place. Tsk.

A wonderful Dawkins quote

Richard Dawkins often produces fun little quotes; one of my favourite is "I had the great privilege to swim with a flightless albatross".

This is a particularly good one, though:

if monkey-watchers were as gene-conscious as they might be, they would not use an important word like 'aunt' so uncritically.

Very Wodehouse.

The odd effects of stress

So, I'm on holidays from work; first time I've ever taken time off. And, as always seems to happen to me when I abruptly de-stress, I get sick! Does anyone else get this? When I was in college, immediately after exams were over, I would get a cold.

As i have now. Nothing serious, but will probably need to mainline nuerofen and sudafed for the next few days...

No doubt it is some sort of ancient survival mechanism which we have managed to confuse with our modern world. Anyway, whatever the cause, it ALWAYS seems go happen to me; relax for a few days, and bang! No immune system.

Anyway, had better go to the local pharmacy; hope they don't end up thinking I'm some weird paracetamol addict.

Kevin Myers Blinded me with Pseudoscience

Kevin Myers is a noted irritating writer for the Irish Independent, which is a newspaper confused as to whether it's a tabloid or broadsheet, and a very unpleasant. However, until today I hadn't realised he was entirely stupid.

Here's his article for yesterday. It refers to the recent scandal where the Minister of State for Science was going to launch an anti-evolution book; the minister ultimately withdrew, presumably after he realised just how much it would make him look like an idiot. Kev's article on the subject is, well, to put it mildly, interesting. It's titled Evolutionism is just another belief system -- but one that depends on a great deal of science. It first attempts to define 'evolutionism' (a word typically used by creationists and others to denote a person who accepts the theory of evolution through natural selection) as a religion:

Evolutionism is proof of the power of evolution, for it has itself evolved into a religion, with Richard Dawkins its St Paul and St Peter, its proselytiser and pope.

This strikes me as very peculiar; how, precisely? And why Dawkins of all people?

Like any worthwhile religion, it treats non-believers as backward and uneducated.

Well, Mr Myers, not to put it too finely, that is because they are.

Now, that stuff alone is pretty silly; are people who accept, say, Newtonian gravitation as a reasonable model for everyday circumstances gravitationists, who worship at the alter of Stephen Hawking? Are people who accept that 1 + 1 = 2 depraved mathsists, who go down to the university every Sunday for readings from the sacred Principia Mathematica? The whole basis of religious faith is that it it faith; something accepted without evidence. Oh, but it doesn't stop there.

Theories of evolution when tested on the origin of protein molecules, not to speak of DNA, usually imitate Mr Gladstone when replying to Queen Victoria's question: "Yes, prime minister, but what is it exactly that lesbians do in bed?"

Evolution cannot explain the most basic question about how a simple protein like insulin could have first been formed. "Simple" is a relative term: insulin is composed of 51 amino acids and has a molecular weight of 5808. Water is just 18. You can boil the primeval molecular broth for an awful long time and put it under enormous pressures, but you will not spontaneously create an insulin molecule

Now, what he's really asking, even if he doesn't know it, and apparently he doesn't, is how did life originate? The origin of life is called abiogenesis, and while there are many theories, some quite advanced and with evidence behind them, there is no standard model, as there is for, say, evolution.

Now, nobody suggests, nobody, that the insulin molecule popped into existence by chance in the 'primordial soup'. Most theories of abiogenesis involve the chance creation of a self-replicating, data-carrying molecule, and go from there. It's quite detailed, and you can read about it here and elsewhere, but it's by no means some fanciful idea, and there is a lot of science behind it.

The very idea that insulin turned up randomly in a primordial soup is very odd. Even modern 'primitive' organisms such as bacteria do not have or produce insulin; the e coli that produces insulin for medical purposes was made by inserting human DNA for making insulin into the bacterium. And no doubt it evolved like any other substance that an organism produces; through selection of DNA mutations, and in fact the evolution of insulin production genes has been much-studied. Myers appears to believe that it must first have shown up spontaneously through non-biological action, which is simply bizarre.

I can't help suspecting, actually, that Myers has been mislead by the claims of creationists; a popular creationist talking point is that "something couldn't happen purely by chance which no scientist claimed happened by chance". His case seems to be that insulin couldn't have evolved, because it is highly improbable that it would have shown up all on its own, by random chance. Which is all very nice, but nobody suggested it did that. While some chance is required in the very early stages of abiogenesis, the mechanisms to make insulin evolved, normally, and evolution through natural selection is not chance; while it relies on random mutations, it tends to select against those which are harmful, or even, generally, neutral. The strangest thing here is that it's asking entirely the wrong question; even assuming the whole thing was chance, the chance of insulin showing up all on its own surely has nothing to do with organisms gaining the ability to manufacture it. Perhaps he thinks it's a necessary prerequisite to life or something?

Saying that such immensely complex, artfully constructed creations were the result of accidents is like putting 140 pounds of mince into a huge mixer, churning them around for a million years and expecting Einstein to result.

Okay, Kev, but who said that? No-one on the science side, certainly. It's a popular creationist strawman, essentially a rehash of "a cat can't change into a tree by chance" but concerning biochemistry to make it less obviously stupid at first glance.

Evolutionism is now basically just another belief system, but one that depends on a great deal of science; and where science doesn't supply the answers, it launches itself into a mass of abstractions and elaborate essays in Yetology, as in: "Science has not YET explained the emergence of the first peptides, however . . ."

And I'm not sure that anyone has said that, either. Here is an article on the alleged irreducible complexity of these things. The bit about the first peptides is, again, strawman weirdness; how on earth are we to know what the first peptides were? And really, does a scientist saying "we don't know, yet" make something a religion? When a mathematician says "we don't know, yet" if all prime numbers are whatever, does that make maths a religion? Now, if someone were to demonstrate that it were impossible  or very unlikely for abiogenesis to lead, eventually, to insulin, that would be a big blow for evolution, certainly, but Myers ridiculous strawman simply doesn't qualify.

Moreover, the best way to attract incredulous guffaws amongst "intelligent" westerners is to declare that the concept of intelligent design has some merit.

That's because intelligent design is a cynical ploy to disguise creationism as science to fool the gullible.

THE real paradox in the western world is that evolutionism now co-exists with theism. Most Darwinians believe in a god and most religious people accept Darwin.

Hardly a paradox. We have, remember, observed evolution in action. Religious people may have different views on how their god comes into it, if at all; for instance some may claim that their god set up the prerequisite state of a universe suitable to life (which is a problem in physics and cosmology; there are alternative scientific theories) or that it created the first terribly primitive life (thus ignoring the question of abiogenesis). Myers seems to have come to believe (incorrectly) that evolution through natural selection is in itself supposed to explain where life comes from; in fact it explains how life evolves, with the origins of life and a universe suitable to it being delegated elsewhere.

We certainly don't accept an allegedly all-encompassing theory about the origins of species that cannot even begin to explain how the bricks and mortar of life came into being.

Again, Kevin, who the hell is doing this alleging? No-one on the science side, again; the origins of life are a separate issue. And evolutionary scientists have explained and continue to explain how many of the 'bricks and mortar of life' came into being; are we to refuse to accept it until it has covered every damn protein and sugar and other biochemical in existence?

What this article really does, though, is show that he has no idea what he's talking about. It's not just that spontaneous generation of insulin is silly, it's that even if it were totally practical, it would still be no use to anyone; organisms which need insulin need the machinery to produce it, not have it arise from a primordial soup in the vicinity. It is the wrong question.

If I were the person who'd produced this rubbish, I'd be embarrassed. He should really, perhaps, have had a quick read before he started, perhaps even perusing some of the tomes of the Dread Lord Dawkins; there is no shortage of coverage suitable for the layman.

For much more on the topic, see this handy index of silly creationist claims.

iOS on HTC Magic video would appear to be fake

This video of iOS allegedly running on a HTC Magic is doing the rounds at the moment.



The only trouble? The 'delete apps' mode is wrong; delete buttons are appearing over builtin apps, which real iOS doesn't do. Otherwise, an extremely detailed fake, though...

Ooh, what a giveaway

An update for Epic Citadel, an impressive technology demonstrator for iPhone/iPad.

Note the Fixed performance issues on iPad devices running iOS 4 or later. So, people have access to iOS 4.2 now! Not ordinary developers, who are still stuck on 4.1, but it appears that at least some have been given access to the next one...

What I did with my weekend

So, this was the first proper weekend I've had for three weeks; I was at home both days! What I did:

• Went to the George, and hid in the corner as per usual; me actually putting myself forward might be a bit much to hope for. I continue to be worst gay evar.
• Fiddled with the iPhone SDK.
• Became addicted to Starcraft II, which is the first multiplayer game I've ever really played. It's amazing!
• Watched old episodes of One Foot in the Grave on Youtube.

And that's really about it. All in all, an unproductive but relaxing weekend; feeling a lot saner now.

Bonus; most amazing scene in any TV show ever.