Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

« Older Entries

What is to become of Computer Science?

Wednesday, November 30th, 2011

When people ask what I do, I normally say I work with computers. “Ah,” they say. “You’re in IT. My nephew is in the same line.” Well actually, no – I don’t do IT and I don’t do the modern version: ICT. I was around long before these terms were coined, and they really don’t apply. IT is all about setting up Windows and writing Macros in Excel (if you’re advanced).  If I say I’m a computer programmer it’s assumed I’m a “web developer”. System programmer doesn’t mean anything to most people; assembler programmer even less.

Then a few years ago I realised what I was – I’m a Computer Scientist. Well I lecture on Computer Science degree courses, ergo I must be. Actually this antiquated term is very appropriate for an antiquated computer person, and if the hat fits…

Back in the 1970’s and early 1980’s we were all Computer Scientists. If you wanted a computer you pretty much had to build it yourself with a soldering iron and a load of chips and when complete, you had to program it. If your employer purchased one of these expensive items ready built, you pretty much had to program it yourself – unless you were an operator, in which case you merely had to understand it. You learned a lot in the process, if you were that way inclined.

These days people want a career in IT, so they do Computer Science courses at University. They’re wasting their time. They learn very little from the university about computer science, and the university is perfectly happy with that. The way computers work is difficult; difficult means expensive to teach and certain to put off students. If you put off students, you get less money. So you need to teach easy stuff.

Easy stuff in Computer Science basically comes down to playing around with luser-land software, animation packages and an SQL query or two – but not too hard. Perhaps write a bit of HTML by hand before moving on to some web page design package.

Here’s the conundrum.

Students = money, but only if they stay the course.

A low pass rate = less money (success is measured in pass rate).

Computer programming is difficult. Most IT students can’t hack it. Therefore it has to be dumbed down to an extent you’d never believe. Those with the aptitude could program before they came on the course; those without it would never learn.

In 2009 the university I taught programming in decided that the need to pass the programming module was affecting their overall pass rate, so they made it optional. Yes folks – you can get a Computer Science degree without being able to write a single line of code. I’d name names here, but I understand this is common practice so what’s the point?

Now I’m not saying I’m unique or even special in understanding how computers work. There are plenty of others of my generation that know as much, if not more. What I’m wondering about is what happens when our generation retires? It’s not possible to go through the learning process we had back then – learning by doing (because frankly, the education system was nowhere near the leading edge).

I believe there was a sweet spot at the end of the 1970’s, where microprocessors had just appeared on the scene and you had to understand things from first principles if you wanted to do anything with them. If you didn’t have to construct a machine yourself, you certainly needed to program it if you wanted it to do anything – and they were simple enough that this was a realistic possibility.

Sitting in front of a modern Windows PC is not the same experience at all. With a PET/Apple/Tandy computer you turned it on and the first thing you saw was a prompt to start entering your program in BASIC. You lived in a programming environment. With CP/M it was only a few keystrokes away. Now we’re presented with a graphic user interface and no programming language whatsoever – just Facebook. The complexity of the Windows API is daunting; more so given that everyone thinks its cool to write stuff using the current favourite object-oriented wrapper library. In order to achieve anything looking like a modern computer program (where the graphic user interface is everything) you have to jump through numerous hoops before you can get started. If I complain, I’m pointed at the application generator – it’ll write most of the code for me, apparently. If you ask what the reams of generated preamble code does, people just shrug their shoulders and ask why you’re questioning it.

In 1998 I found myself writing a system-level utility for Windows inside a large company, and needed to sort an array into alphabetical order. I don’t think there’s a Windows API function, and qsort seemed to be missing from the library, so I consulted the lead Windows programmer across the room. The answer came back to put my strings (one by one) into this file selector structure (as file name), make some call or other to the file selector box and presto – my strings would come back sorted. No, he wasn’t joking. Two minutes later I’d written bubble-sort, for the umpteenth time.

This was thirteen years ago; how much has it deteriorated since then? I’m lucky to be developing software either solo, or with a developer of my generation, so I’m probably insulated against the worst excesses.

So, back to the point: where are we going to get Computer Scientists from? I started on the sweet spot, where it was possible to learn pretty much everything about the computer in front of you – every instruction, every IO register, and every line of the operating system. As computers expanded, our knowledge expanded, built on these early foundations. We can’t do that any more. If we ran a three-year degree course in computing and started from the basics you’d end up with me someone whose knowledge was wide enough to cover a BBC Micro. They’d need another twenty-seven years after that, and by the time they qualified they’d be thirty years out-of-date.

And why should anyone even bother? I can assure you, there’s more money to be made out of IT than Computer Science. The only decent return available if you understand computer fundamentals appears to come from cybercrime – and that’s perpetrating it; no one wants to pay for security.

I’m told that the government plans to bring back an element of programming into the ‘O’ level maths (or its modern equivalent). This is a start, but a small one.

In the mean time I’m watching the other member’s of the OS/2 drinking club fall away and wondering what is to become of us. The draw of Bletchley Park grows every stronger.

 

Tags: , ,
Posted in Politics, Technology | No Comments »

Phone hacking gets serious

Tuesday, July 19th, 2011

A committee of MPs are currently grilling the management of News International trying to find someone to blame for the ‘phone “hacking” scandal. It has to be someone convenient; definitely not the people who are actually responsible. That’d lose them votes. This is because those ultimately responsible are the readers of the tabloid newspapers with their insatiable appetite for the personal details of anyone famous, or in the news.

Readers of the Daily Mirror and the Sun/News of the Screws are mostly to blame, together with the Daily Mail, Express and “celebrity” magazines. They’re creating the demand; the publishers are in business to satisfy a demand. This isn’t to say I approve of the business – the cult of celebrity is one of the most rotten things about modern society – but blaming those making a living by never underestimating the public’s bad taste is like condemning a lion for eating an antelope. The tabloids are profitable; proper newspapers are a money pit.

But the politicians don’t want to blame the tabloid readers (aka most of the electorate), and neither does the news media want to blame their best customers. Instead they’re nervously jostling for position in a circular firing squad.

Politically, blaming the Murdoch Press is the best answer. Politicians would love to control the media, but in the west this is a tricky position to engineer. The fact that a sub-contracted investigator to one tabloid accessed the voice-mail of a missing person who subsequently turned out to have been murdered is a pretty flimsy pretext, but they appear to be making the most of it. Oh yes – they messed with a police investigation by deleting old messages. Hmm. My mobile ‘phone voicemail does this automatically – why blame the hack? Just convenient, and it makes it seem more shocking and no one is going to mention this obvious explanation as a possibility. This morning I heard Neil Kinnock suggesting the press needed regulating. Well it worked for Castro, Stalin and Kim Jung Il, his socialist role models?

Last weekend the News of the World was forced to close; a newspaper (in the broad sense of the word) was muzzled to cheers of delight. They were doing something illegal, and they had to go. Actually it was only made illegal in 2000 by Blair’s government (arguably it only came in to force in 2002). Prior to this it was dodgy ground, but there was always a public interest defence. This is key. Journalists used to be able to snoop on whoever they chose as long as it was in the public interest. Each individual case had to be argued on its merits; it was safe. Now journalists face a very real risk of prosecution simply for looking into the dealings of corrupt politicians, organised criminals and dodgy police officers (especially). New Labour’s idea is that only the police and security services were allowed to do anything like this – i.e. The state should have a monopoly on snooping. This is the same model used by the Gestapo, the KGB, the OVRA and the Stasi. It’s used in various countries in the modern world; there was no free press to hold the secret police and politicians to account.

Does this mean Blair and New Labour deserver to be lumped in the dictatorial heads of police states? Probably not – they produced a large amount of stupid legislation in a hurry and I could well believe this was simple incompetence. However, it’s notable that politicians now are hardly lining up to condemn these totalitarian laws. Why would they? One of the major beneficiaries have been the politicians themselves, who like to have a protect “private life” outside the glare of publicity.

As a final note, watch for the Mirror – they were the subjcet of more complaints about illegal intercepts (by a long way) than The Sun, Screws or anyone else on Fleet Street (or Wapping). So far they’re being protected. If you think this is a conspiricy theory, check the complaints for yourself on the Ofcom web site. Don’t expect the news media to report it – not in their intersts!

Tags: , ,
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

Oil war or humanitarian mission?

Sunday, March 20th, 2011

I’ve woken up today to hear we’re in yet another war to protect oil supplies, this time in Libya.

What’s actually happening is that a bunch of dodgy people are trying to take control from the existing a dodgy government by force of arms. The UN (a label of convenience) is weighing in on the side of the anti-government faction that controls the oil fields (or did yesterday, things are moving fast). The excuse is that they’re protecting civilians.

Now this is something of a civil war. There are four groups involved. Firstly there are the government forces. They’re not civilians and it’s their job to protect the state. If we had an armed uprising in the UK (such as the IRA), the state army is there to protect the government. The Libyan army likewise.

The second group are the anti-state “army”. Actually they’re not an army; they’re several groups of civilians with guns and bombs. The state army is defending the state against them, as would be expected. Is the UN protecting these “civilians” from the state army? It looks like it; or more specifically the UN is providing military support to this groups, against the government.

The third and fourth groups are the pro and anti-government civilians. By siding with the anti-government lot (simplistically, those in the east) you could argue that you’re protecting those civilians, but as you’re not (apparently) protecting the pro-government civilians in Tripoli from the rebels, it’s a very thin argument.

All governments in the region are dodgy (Israel is the only real democracy as we know it). The rebels are dodgy. It’s a dodgy place, and there are dodgy people around. It’s the way things are, and we should be leaving them alone. Otherwise we’re imposing our version how things should be on someone else. But unfortunately a lot of these places are financed by the oil we’re dependent on buying from them, which is what makes Libya a special case (along with Iraq).

Pretending that it’s a “no fly” zone for humanitarian reasons, basically siding with the rebels, is a scandal. If we’re going to war we should be honest about the reasons, not making them up after the event (like Blair and Bush). And if they think they’re backing the right horse with military support and they’ll be rewarded later, they know nothing about the culture in that region. I’m not even sure they’ve backed the right horse; Gaddafi’s government doesn’t roll over easily.

Tags:
Posted in Politics | 1 Comment »

Cameron on Gaddafi – it’s personal

Saturday, March 19th, 2011

I’ve just watched David Cameron being interviewed about the situation in Libya. He’s saying things like “Stop Col. Gaddafi”, and “Col. Gaddafi is brutalising his people”, referring to Libya’s stated compliance with a ceasefire.

This is worrying. Col. Gaddafi isn’t attacking civilians, repressing his people or doing any of the other things David Cameron and Barak Obama are accusing him of. HE is sitting in an office. Elsewhere in Libya there are people with differing interests fighting each other. It’s called a civil war.

When our politicians refer to such problems in terms of a specific personality, such as Col. Gaddafi, Saddam Hussein or even Adolf Hitler we’re in for trouble. It’s not one person creating the situation, but a sizeable group of people with a vested interest. They’re missing the point. Or more likely, they’re hoping we’ll miss it.

Tags:
Posted in Politics | No Comments »

Alternative Voting

Thursday, March 17th, 2011

I’ve just had a very nice chap on the ‘phone asking me if the AV campaign could count on my support in the forthcoming referendum. I told him that would be premature.

AV is attractive, but so is the existing, tried and tested system that has done us fairly well for nearly a century. Prior to that we had a similar system, except that women weren’t allowed to vote. This was probably wrong, but made sense at the time as women haven’t always been as clued up as in modern times (which was definitely wrong). Going back further we’ve had systems where (crudely put) only the best educated in society have had a vote, to various extents.

The idea that democracy is good, and therefore more democracy is better, doesn’t really hold water. Democracy was popularised by the ancient Greeks in Athens, but even back then they could see the problems (Plato’s Republic is an interesting read, and Socrates was a smart guy with a solid handle on it).

The good thing about democracies is that they allow you to boot out a bad government, which is why we must keep them. But do they get you a good government? I’d say, based on the evidence, that the more democratic you get, the worse the worse decisions the government is likely to take.

The AV camp keep pointing to Australia as a working example. If this is the best they can come up with, we’re in big trouble. Just take a look at Australian politics in action and you’ll see what I mean.

Another of their arguments, to quote the Electoral Reform Society, is that it “Penalises extremist parties, who are unlikely to gain many second preference votes.” They don’t back this up with research, so here’s an anecdote about the BNP (argue amongst yourselves as to whether they’re what was being talked about).

In the 2010 elections, talking to voters (especially in the less well-off and looser-tongued areas) the subject on the BNP came up. “They make a lot of sense and I’d vote for them if I thought it would do any good…” was a message I got quite frequently, in spite of the pariah status imparted to the BNP by the media. This was followed by “but I don’t want Gordon Brown to get back in.”

And there’s the rub. The AV camp believes people will vote positively with AV: vote for who they really want. What they don’t realise is that, at present, a lot of people are voting against who they don’t want, more than anything else.

So how will “extremist” parties fair under AV? Pretty well, I suspect. People would have voted for the BNP with their first choice, and against Gordon Brown with their second. The Electoral Reform Society idea that extremists will be disadvantaged needs some justification.

It’s not just me that thinks this, however. Take another minority extremist party, the Greens (they want to do some pretty extreme things with the economy); what do they reckon? Well their conference voted to back AV and they’re actively campaigning for it. If the Electoral Reform Society is correct then surely the Greens would be wiped out. That scenario doesn’t seem to bother them overly.

On the other hand, the sake-up that minority parties could bring might be just what we need as a society. Remember, you don’t need end up with an MP from such a party, but the realistic threat they might get in is bound to influence the policies of the main parties. For example, in the general population there is a majority to bring back hanging (never mind the issues involved with multiculturalism). The educated liberal elite in the main parties are always putting the brakes on the death penalty when the idea comes up, but if AV really does give the people a purer voice, things may get interesting on this any many other issues.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

« Older Entries