The Bosonic State

How many people outside Singapore has heard of the Youth Olympic Games?

2010-08-09T13:23:00.003+08:00

This is the result of a quick and utterly unscientific poll of the people around me, both from my hall and my lab group, here in Canberra. Certainly, it does not represent "people outside Singapore". In fact, it is hardly a fair picture of the awareness of the Youth Olympic Games (YOG) amongst the people living in Canberra since I'm sampling a mix of academically-inclined, highly-educated community with a good mix of international students. Nonetheless it should still give a hazy sketch on how many people outside Singapore knows about the YOG.

The reason why I did this poll comes from the general sentiments I've been reading about the YOG, especially on the enthusiasm (or lack thereof) of Singaporeans for the event.

The fact that Singaporeans are disinterested does not mean that the event will be a failure. What also matters is the enthusiasm of sporting fans and the international community. That, together with the apparent failure to excite Singaporeans, will be a fair measure of the success of the YOG.

So far I have not heard of the opinions of people outside Singapore on the YOG itself. I have come across no polls about their awareness of the event, and news reports about it are scant to begin with. Hence, I did this poll to throw a bit of light on this question.

More on the results: I've polled a total of 17 people. 11 (red) of them have never heard of the YOG. 2 (yellow) of them heard about it, but do not know that it is coming up or that it is held in Singapore. 4 (green) of them could answer where and when, though it must be pointed out that, of these four, one is a Singaporean and the other have been staying in Singapore for the past two years.

And of the six who know about YOG, only one of them is an Australian (the other five are Asians of varying nationalities). The reason why he knows about it is because he is a sporting enthusiast and is acquainted with news about the Australian Youth Olympic Festival, which I believe is what the YOG is based on.

I am more than aware that the sample size is way too small. However, I am not going out of the way to find out about the opinions of more people. Maybe some other people can do the same thing amongst their friends and we will have a better survey.

It is kinda hard to comment on whether the results are good or bad. We need an equivalent to compare, and I do not know enough about sporting games to do that. Perhaps 35% of awareness is okay for this type of international youth games. But my guess is that it ought to be higher.

Oh, by the way, happy 45th birthday, Singapore!

The Secrecy of an Overseas Vote

2010-03-30T15:51:00.002+08:00

Today in my mail was an air-mailed letter from the Elections Department, informing me that my application to be an overseas voter was approved. Why they had to send me a physical letter when they could've saved some money and use email instead is puzzling to me.

But anyway, this reminds me of a conversation I had yesterday with a couple of Singaporeans here in Canberra. Somehow, the elections came into the discussion, and we arrived at the issue of the secrecy of our votes.

I am fairly confident -- not that I give a damn -- that the individual vote is secret. But it is widely known that, because vote counting is done independently for each polling district, the election officials (and the witnesses from each party) know the distribution of the votes for that district.

Of course, this does not present too much of a problem in Singapore, since there are probably thousands of voters in each district. But as an overseas voter, my vote goes to the district I'm registered in (through my home address). And the counting of overseas votes is done separately when the votes are flown back to Singapore (assuming the procedure is the same as in 2006; see PDF link).

So unless there are a million overseas voter flooding down to Singapore High Commission in Canberra when the election comes, chances are that I am the only one -- or at most, one of the few -- from my district amongst all the overseas votes coming from Canberra. In fact, in the 2006 general elections, there were only 137 voters in Canberra (see PDF link). How secret is my vote then?

Even if overseas votes are counted on the constituency level and not separated down to districts, the size is still small enough to make some people worry.

On the other hand, the oveaseas votes will only matter if the vote difference between the contesting parties is less than the total number of registered overseas voters for that constituency. Since it is unlikely that the vote discrepency can get that small, chances are that the overseas vote makes no difference. I'm not sure if they'll still be counted nonetheless though, but I doubt so since I cannot find any information on the overseas votes results.

Earth Hour: A Confession

2010-03-28T08:10:00.001+08:00

No, this is not a soppy apology by an environmentalist for not obeying this symbolic event. Quite on the contrary, I cycled to Chiefley Meadows on campus yesterday -- a 15 min journey through poorly-lit paths -- to join in the countdown at ANU.

But that's not the point. The confession is on the fact that I realised I have been rather harsh on the organisers and supporters of Earth Hour. Previously, despite being an environmentalist, I have hardly been a huge supporter of Earth Hour, seeing it as a useless symbolic gesture that achieved little practical results. In my eyes, I saw it as a feel-good initiative for people to pretend that they had done their part for the environment.

In fact, I have once written elsewhere that,

I just think that this Earth Hour will not change people’s habit. First, with regards to the point of increase awareness, I do seriously think that the time for awareness is over.

...

The challenge for environmentalists now is to get people to be more environmentally friendly in their actions, either by persuasion or by coercion (e.g. through laws).

And my point was that Earth Hour does not achieve that, because it is at best an hour of fun and games for most people, and after that they will resume their normal energy consumption. And therefore, whenever someone calls Earth Hour an environmental action, I feel insulted because it kinda trivialises the changes I've made on my lifestyle.

But on further reflection, I realise that my reaction is unjustified. Specifically, if I feel insulted, it is because I held an elitist view of the label "environmentalist" as well as the environmental movement. I treated it as some exclusive club where entry is earned by making significant changes to its members' lives.

True, most people will not change their lives because of Earth Hour, but it may serve as a rallying call for people to join in. It may remind them to turn off the lights when they leave the room. It may persuade them to choose a more environmentally friendly alternative (e.g. CFL instead of incandescent bulbs). It may even convince a few to live a lifestyle that is gentler to the Earth.

However slight each of their contributions are, they will add up and make a difference.

And that, I now think, is a good reason to support Earth Hour. I should drop my severely stuck-up view of environmentalism and support action that helps the environment. After all, environmentalism is more than climate change -- which is under siege by scientifically-unfounded skepticism; there are many pressing environmental issues such as light pollution and vanishing biodiversity that Earth Hour will have an effect as well.

And thus, the title of this post, Earth Hour: A Confession.

Unacceptable to have Dolphins in Captivity at IR

2010-01-06T20:41:00.002+08:00

Resorts World Sentosa originally planned to import whale sharks for their oceanarium as part of their Integrated Resort attraction, but have backed off due to pressure from various organisation and members of the public. Whale sharks are not meant to be in captivity, and definitely not in an enclosure the size which the IR can afford.

However, in its place RWS is importing bottlenose dolphins, which is just as bad, even though dolphins tend to strike an impression that they can get happy in captivity. This impression is not quite correct. Unfortunately, with the Dolphin Lagoon already in operation at the Underwater World, it will be all but impossible to make RWS reverse this decision.

I'm reminded of this unhappy incident after reading this article that suggests dolphins ought to be treated like a person. That was a suggestion by a professor of ethics at Loyola Marymount University who have studied and published about this issue.

From the article,

The researchers argue that their work shows it is morally unacceptable to keep such intelligent animals in amusement parks or to kill them for food or by accident when fishing. Some 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises die in this way each year.

Indeed, if dolphins have such intelligence, how is it different, if we continue this practice of putting dolphins in captivity, from putting people in cages and ogle at them? Remember the story of Ota Benga and the existence of human zoos?

But like I said, the chances of preventing the dolphins from coming to the IR is pretty slim, especially with public acceptance of dolphin shows. Still, I suppose we can do our part by first being aware of the issue, and second, spreading the word. Personally, I doubt I will visit the IR.

Crying Over Nothing

2009-12-06T08:01:00.000+08:00

Climategate, the recent row over the hacked emails of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, was an early Christmas gift to climate change sceptics. Immediately upon the release of the emails, sceptics pounced upon the details and cried foul over bias and conspiracy to suppress data that denies climate change.

Now, for someone outside the sphere of scientific research, he or she might think that it is a very merry cooperation and everyone providing a polite slice of their knowledge and research in an orderly fashion. Yet this is quite far from the truth, as I myself have witnessed.

Research is often messy. Too many a times researchers use published data and methods in their own studies without waiting for verification from other sources. Of course, publications being peer-reviewed, most of the time they are alright, but occasionally they may be overthrown by other researchers who pointed out flaws in reasoning or experimental methods. This is part and parcel of research, and it's pretty much accepted so long as the mistake is unintentional. Once in a while, there will be major upheavals -- such as the fabrication of cloning data by Hwang Woo-Suk -- which may upset many studies that are based on the original publication.

Furthermore, researchers may have bias. They may speak out strongly against certain approaches which does not quite conform with their ideas. Personally, I've encountered this problem before. Some may be hostile, some may be polite; but a healthy research environment is able to tolerate conflicting viewpoints under the same roof. And an ideal researcher should be one that may disagree with a direction of research, but still allow it to go ahead.

Such is the nature of research. And thus those personal emails naturally would contain information and communications that do not appear clean to a regular reader. It would take someone in the research environment to really sieve out real misdemeanour from personal disagreements. In fact, other than the initial outcry over words that suggested at fabrication, there is no concrete evidence of such actions. And the fact that sceptics cannot find anything definite after so long perhaps suggested that there is really none.

If you still need an expert report on the situation, the top scientific journal Nature has found no conspiracy in the leaked emails. In fact, with regards to the suppression of the publication, the editorial reports:

In one of the more controversial exchanges, UEA scientists sharply criticized the quality of two papers that question the uniqueness of recent global warming (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick Energy Environ. 14, 751–771; 2003 and W. Soon and S. Baliunas Clim. Res. 23, 89–110; 2003) and vowed to keep at least the first paper out of the upcoming Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted. And the fact is that, in the end, neither they nor the IPCC suppressed anything: when the assessment report was published in 2007 it referenced and discussed both papers.

And I think the most illuminating statement is "whatever the e-mail authors may have said to one another in (supposed) privacy, however, what matters is how they acted." It squares very well with what I've said above: that the research process is messy, and researchers have personal preferences; but ultimately, when they presented their data to the public, everything is cleaned up in a fair manner.

350? Too Audacious a Target?

2009-10-24T12:04:00.002+08:00

Today is the International Day of Climate Action, an event organised by 350.org. It aims, as I understand it, to raise awareness for climate change and the fact that we have exceeded the safe limit of amount of carbon in the air: 350 parts per million (ppm). The organisers advocate people globally to participate in an action that displays the number 350 prominently, and the Singapore arm of the movement intend to take an aerial photograph of supporters forming a massive 350 in Hong Lim Park.

However, I see a potential confusion here. Firstly, from what I know, this ppm thingy is a measure of how much carbon is in the air. It is a number that takes into account numerous factors, including stuff like carbon removal by forests. If you perform an ideal experiment and measure the composition of the atmosphere, this number is what you'll get for carbon dioxide.

Then there's another thing: carbon emissions, which is one part of this composition picture. Carbon emissions is the amount of carbon dioxide released into the atmosphere by human activities. While this number is, of course, linked to the atmospheric composition, it is not directly connected. A drop in emissions today will not ensure a drop in carbon dioxide composition in the atmosphere tomorrow.

Think of it this way: imagine a bucket with a source and a sink. While water flows in from the source, it is drained by the sink, and these two forms a balance. In an oversimplistic view, this is the pre-industrial age atmospheric carbon picture (oversimplistic because there are ice ages and all sorts of other factors that cause carbon composition to fluctuate) - with the source being the (natural) emissions, the sink being carbon removal capabilities like forests, and the amount of water being the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In comes the industrial age, and the source is increased tremendously and the sink decreases. The water level thus rose and is still rising. So even if we turn off our "extra" source and put in more sinks, it's gonna be some time before the water level reverses and returns to the original level. In fact, there is a projection which predict that this reversal will not come before a thousand years have elapsed.

In short, carbon composition will lag behind changes in emissions. Already, the composition of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 390 ppm, way higher than the target, and in all realistic hopes, 350 ppm is too fanciful a number to dream for. Looking at the top chart below, obtained from an article by Michael Raupach et al. in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,

we can see that we have to cut our emissions drastically to even achieve 450 ppm (dashed green line) in the next century. Even 650 ppm looks way far off (dashed blue line). The various A and B lines are projections based on different scenarios (of which, if you want to know, can be found in the article). Even if we switch to clean technology completely - as described by A1T (solid green line) - we cannot even reach 450 ppm in a hundred years' time (though we will be captured by the error bars of 650 ppm). But the most realistic projection is A1B (orange line), which is based on a balance of fossil fuel and clean technology.

Now, much as I advocate environmentalism, I feel uncomfortable about brandishing 350 as the number. In all honesty, no climate scientists are able to tell you in certain terms what the magical number ought to be. In fact, 350 ppm is the lowest safety limit I've heard of; other predictions range up to 650 ppm, but I think that number is really skirting the cliff's edge. Nonetheless, that is already a difficult target to reach, as evidenced by the chart above. So there is no reason for inaction. Especially if you care.

The Right to be Right

2009-10-15T00:01:00.001+08:00

This is a blog post for Blog Action Day 2009 on the topic of climate change.

Environmental action often entails a change in lifestyle, most of which involves some inconveniences. For example, sorting out recyclables from trash and bringing them to the nearest recycling bin necessitates hassle. Buying compact fluorescent lamp which are more energy saving will result in a higher initial cost. Spending a night without air-conditioning will lessen the comfort of your sleep.

These undertakings of an individual alone have hardly an impact on the environment at all. The consequent reduction in carbon footprint is a drop in the entire ocean of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Alright, sure, there is the typical argument that the collective effort can have a marked change - as exemplified by events such as Earth Hour - but this argument does not induce much motivation in many people. This is an unfortunate truth - that a cumulative reward at the cost of compromise in personal lifestyle, particularly when the reward demands others to do the same, is not embraced by most people - and the past calls for environmental efforts have demonstrated that. Moreover, it is a vicious cycle: if most people does not want to take action, then there will be no collective benefit, and thus there is no practical incentive for the individual to be green, thereby sinking the situation into a deeper inertial hole. Some say it is up to governments to take action, but let us not forget that the government is subjected to people's desires, so there is only limited wiggling space for them to impose environmental restrictions on the people.

Such a dilemma reminds me of a course I took during my last semester at NUS. It was a geography module called Environmental Sustainability (module code: GE3239), and the lecturer once mentioned that Singapore unsheathes the argument that the effects in restricting our emissions is so negligible on the global scale that it matters very little how much we try to quell our carbon output. This is an iconic pragmatic argument, and it is not wrong in that perspective. After all, that bit Singapore contributes is truly minimal and it is the grand total of greenhouse gases (GHGs) in the atmosphere that counts. The climate does not go looking at the per capita emission.

Then is there any reason for the individual, which, in such a position, differs not so much from Singapore in the example above, to go green? There certainly is: environmental action grants the person a moral right to, at the very least, make a environmental statement. In the end, climate change is going to affect us all in some ways or other, and it would be hypocritical for one to be concerned if he does not observe and reduce his carbon footprint. Regardless of how small one's contribution is to the environmental cause on the large picture, in doing so he allows himself to say that he is concerned, that something has to be done, that it is unfair for the US to have such disproportionately high carbon output. One's effort will not make any practical difference if others do not do their part, but it gives him the right to be right.

Making an effort for the environment does not entail an upheaval in lifestyle. Steps can be small, little at a time, a bit here and there, and all in all one can shed his carbon footprint by a significant share. Below is a suggested list of a few actions that you can do - all of which I personally do - to slash your carbon emissions. These actions are not the typical feel-good slacktivisms such as Earth Hour or clicking one button on Facebook.

Go vegetarian or semi-vegetarian. Meat turns out to be a major carbon source, and cutting it not only benefits the environment, but also your health. Join the ranks of Albert Einstein, Sir Paul McCartney, Christian Bale and Carl Lewis.
Bring an environmental bags or regular plastic bags when shopping. In addition, I always tuck a small, folded plastic bag into a compartment in my sling pouch or backpack, in case I wanted to buy something on the spot.
Turn off the computer monitor, put the computer to standby or hibernate/shut down, as opposed to letting it idle off when you need to leave it for a period. How long a period it should be is up to you; for me, it is roughly one minute, five minutes and fifteen minutes respectively.
Try without the air-conditioner. It is a major electricity hog, and most people do not need it. And there are some nights, especially rainy ones, in which a fan is more than sufficient. You do not have to swear it off - Singapore's heat can be notorious - but how about raising the threshold of your heat tolerance?

These actions address more than mere climate change, which is the topic of this year's Blog Action Day. Certainly, climate change is one glaring symptom of this environmental disease, but other environmental issues (which may share the same root cause as climate change) ought not be neglected. Examples: depleting resources, vanishing biodiversity, destruction to coastal habitats, overfishing; and the actions listed above do address these issues and more. So do take heart and take action.

The Paradox of Thio Li-Ann's Anti-Gay Stand

2009-07-30T22:51:00.001+08:00

(Disclaimer: this post is not a writeup arguing for gay rights. Neither is this an opinion concerning Thio's withdrawal. It won't even be a rebuttal of her arguments. Any attempt at these is merely a repetition of what many others have written. Also, what is argued below is my own guesswork, and anyone with a better idea are welcomed to correct me.)

One of the recent news that has been hitting the headlines online is Thio Li-Ann's withdrawal from New York University as a visiting professor due to two reasons: low enrolment for her class and a hostile environment, both of which probably stemmed from her public anti-gay stand. Her arguments against gay rights were often ridiculed by many netizens for their gaps in logic. In fact, her parliament speech regarding the repealing of section 377A were so flawed that even the conservative Straits Times, often accused of filtering forum letters in favour of opponents of gay rights, has an editorial which lambasted her (here is an article commenting on this).

Yet, she held on to them and insisted on her opposition to gay rights. I find this situation rather curious, because she, being a professor of law, ought to either have an excellent argument for her case, or see that she is wrong. This paradox has baffled me for quite some time, but I think I've figured out why she stuck to her weak arguments: it is a consequence of trying to argue in Singapore's secular setting but retaining her stand that comes from her personal belief (and interestingly, she has attacked Singapore's secularism recently with a straw-man argument).

I remember reading an editorial at the start of this year in either Science or Nature (can't remember which) - considered by many as the top two journals in science - in which the author argues that the Obama should appoint scientists in his administration because they are trained to make "correct" judgements. His point is that a proper science training should teach the scientist not to favour, assume or even expect a particular conclusion before the experiment. A scientist, in positions of power, will therefore analyse the situation objectively based on all avaliable data and make a stand based on his analysis. This will ensure that the decision made is the best possible for the country. He contrasts this with lawyers, which are trained to pick up a particular stand and construct arguments to support it. This is, of course, rather an unfair opinion against lawyers because there is a difference between one's derivation of his stand and one's academic training, but his underlying assumption about decision-making is clear: in choosing a stand, we should analyse the arguments before making a conclusion.

There is also the joke that puts economists in the same bad shoes. It goes like this: a mathematician, a statistician and an economist were at a job interview. They were asked what two plus two is. The mathematician says, "four", and the statistician says, "on average, four". The economist, on the other hand, surreptitiously asks the interviewer, "well, what do you want it to be?" The punchline is about the wrong way of making a stand: choose the conclusion you want, before finding arguments to prop it up (and ignoring evidence that contradict that stand).

So are the arguments of the opponents to gay rights formed as such? Assembled top-down from the conclusion instead of constructed bottom-up from basic principles and evidence? Are these people like the accused lawyer in the editorial or the economist in the joke? Not necessary: they may have a different premise. Gay right proponents may have the premise that there ought to be no discrimination based on sexuality. But opponents to gay rights, such as those who have been in the spotlight recently like Thio, may have the premise that goes: "the Bible is right". If we start from this premise, it is naturally a conclusion that being gay is wrong.

Now, all this is fine and good if one applies that conclusion to oneself, but the problem comes when one tries to apply the conclusion to others, on a society-wide setting. There will inevitably be contradictions which springs from differences in premises. So in a country like Singapore we practise secularism - meaning all arguments that are forwarded in society must either be independent of system of belief or applies to all systems of belief. As a result their arguments will no longer work, because not everyone can accept the premise that "the Bible is right". Consequently, these opponents try to find an argument that is founded upon secular premises to support their stands so they can push their ideas upon the society.

But that is precisely what the economist did.

Meteor Attack!

2009-06-14T20:25:00.000+08:00

I noticed this news yesterday from the Daily Telegraph:

14-year-old hit by 30,000 mph space meteorite
A schoolboy has survived a direct hit by a meteorite after it fell to earth at 30,000mph.

Gerrit Blank, 14, was on his way to school when he saw "ball of light" heading straight towards him from the sky.

A red hot, pea-sized piece of rock then hit his hand before bouncing off and causing a foot wide crater in the ground.

Wow!

...

Right.

Okay, the subtitle of the article is "A schoolboy has survived a direct hit by a meteorite after it fell to earth at 30,000mph." The first question that pops into my mind is: how on Earth does the boy or the newspaper know that the meteorite is going at 30,000 mph? That's about 10,000 m/s, which is damn bloody fast. It can cover the length of Singapore in about 4 seconds. And second question: direct hit? Even if it's granular sized, the kinetic energy and momentum involved would've blown up his hand. And then the article also threw up some numbers which, if you'd think about it, is highly fishy.

Definitely, either this is a sham that made it to the news, or there are gross inaccuracies in that article, which is rather shameful because The Daily Telegraph is somewhat a reliable source of news. I searched around and found a more reliable analysis of this article by someone from Discover magazine:

A boy claims he was hit by a meteorite

Okay dudes, all the more reason to carry an umbrella even if it is not raining.

More Opposition MPs: How Will This Change Voting Patterns?

2009-05-28T23:20:00.002+08:00

In what is probably the biggest change in the political system in recent years, the government has announced that the lower limit for the number of opposition members of parliament will be raised from three to nine. This means that, in future elections, if the opposition parties capture less than nine seats, the rest will be filled up with NCMPs from the losing team with highest proportion of votes.

The first question that springs to my mind is, why does the government do this? I mean, are the PAP MPs looking for more targets to abuse in parliament? Well, there is the most straightforward possibility that the PAP really wants more checks and balances against themselves. Uh... okay, scrap that.

Obviously, this move will ultimately benefit them in some ways. But how? It seems to be a response against the rising voices of "checks and balances" and the employment of it as a rationale for supporting the opposition in elections. So PAP is trying to say, "Yo! You guys there who vote for the opposition because of the 'checks and balances' reason. There's no more need to do that with this new change!"

Now, does this hold water? It comes down to what it all means when people say they want "checks and balances". Basically, to me at least, it seems that this "checks and balances" imply that the PAP cannot pass bills in parliament at will. That is, the PAP controls less than two-thirds of the seats in parliament. In this case, the new measures cannot convince a rational individual to forgo "checks and balances" as a consideration when voting. Even with nine opposition MPs, they still cannot block any bill if the PAP MPs vote unanimously. What's more, NCMPs have limited voting powers.

However, is that all to "checks and balances"? Could someone want "checks and balances", and yet mean something less than a third of opposition MPs in parliament? It could very well be, if this person assumes "checks and balances" as more questions asked in parliament sessions. More specifically, they want bills to be scrutinised. They want "failures" like the recent losses in Temasek Holdings to be dissected. They want issues to be debated more thoroughly. And perhaps, they trust PAP MPs to vote on their individual capacities on non-partisan matters.

So how much votes will this new change bring for the PAP? Definitely, those hardcore fans of either camps are not going to budge. PAP is aiming at the middle of the spectrum, at people who may vote for the PAP, but at the same time lean towards the opposition for "checks and balances". For the person who takes that to mean "less than 66% of MPs belong to PAP", it's not gonna work. But how much does this group of people comprise in the electoral roll? How many people interpret "checks and balances" as the second meaning? How many people have no idea of what they want when they demand "checks and balances"?

On a side note, I welcome the new change to smaller GRCs, so long as it does not imply an increase in the number of ministers!

The Aftermath of the AWARE War

2009-05-02T21:21:00.002+08:00

As with all wars, there is celebration on the side of the victors, and bitterness on the side of the defeated. But as these emotions fade, what will emerge is the vast destruction done to the people and the infrastructure. Lives lost, buildings bombed, resources wasted... a scene of ruin that greets both sides.

In a similar sense, a war has broken out in Singapore's civil society, a struggle for power for one of Singapore's most prominent interest group. The dispute in AWARE has culminated in the EGM, which dragged overtime for several hours, and eventually tilted against the favour of the new AWARE committee, triggering their resignation.

But what has been destroyed in this AWARE war? One thing for sure, Constance Singam has identified that the trust that was implicit in the organisation is gone now. Like a shattered vase, there is no way to restore its original state; even with masterful reparations, cracks will forever be there.

But I think it goes beyond that. The trust amongst different interest groups in society may be under strain. And I am not talking about groups that sit on opposite sides of an issue, like evolutionists and creationists. After all, AWARE does not fight for gay-rights, yet it was on this issue that triggered the entire affair. This has shown that even if a group is only tangentially concerned with a minor issue, it is liable to be taken over by other groups. So the lesson that other groups, observing this AWARE war, can learn is to guard themselves against such a takeover by any other groups with an alternative motive. And with that, the trust is gone. And maybe... maybe, it's not so bad a thing after all.

But what will this mean, beyond all that trust and everything? Is society more polarised between pro-gays and anti-gays now? Will the battle for gay rights be more difficult now? Is it really a victory for supporters of the so-called Old Guards, especially when there were signs of rowdiness and rude interruptions? The words, the insults and the name-calling... how much of this whole saga can we call it a step forward for democracy?

Is this war really over? Or will it lead, just like World War I, to another more devastating showdown?

The Problem with the New AWARE EXCO

2009-04-25T11:59:00.003+08:00

Undoubtedly, you would've heard of the whole nasty business that is going on in AWARE right now.

Personally, my take is this: the initial silence and lack of communications to the public, as well as the hostilities towards and dismissals of the previous EXCO members, are all worrying signs. Moreover, it is evident that there will be a change of ideals, but the new EXCO has yet to announce this agenda of theirs. Recent press conferences did shed some light on their directions, but this is only weeks after the takeover, and there were still many burning questions yet to be answered to satisfaction.

This seems to signal a "I know best, so just shut up and follow" attitude which is disturbing to say the least. Since AWARE is an activist group, communication ought to be one of the most important facet of its operations. Even as I grant the new EXCO a chance to prove and establish themselves, they have been utterly disappointing thus far.

Many of the new EXCO members have expressed concern with AWARE's pro-gay stance, which is of course valid. But AWARE is not about gay rights; it's about female rights. These people - as well as the supposed coordinator of the takeover, Thio Su Mien - were outspoken against gay rights with their frequent letters to the press, but they have done nothing similar for female rights, as far as I know.

AWARE has done much for feminine rights in Singapore. I hope the upcoming EGM will clear up certain hazy issues and allow us to, at the very least, know more about the new EXCO's plan for this organisation.

By the way, if you too find the new EXCO's actions questionable, here are two links to a website that seeks answers from them and a petition that you can lend your support to:

http://www.we-are-aware.sg/
http://www.gopetition.com/petitions/gender-equality-for-all.html

Election in 2009? The Chances Involved

2009-02-19T12:37:00.001+08:00

The recent updates to the electoral rolls and polling districts suggest the possibility of an election sometime in the near future, perhaps in this year. This will probably place it within the current financial cesspool.

So what chances are the PAP taking by having it at this moment? There are numerous incidents which reflects unfavourably to the governing authority. From Mas Selamat to GST increase to ministerial pay hike to the enormous losses of our sovereign wealth funds, there are plenty of issues that can invoke the ire of Singaporeans.

Indeed, these are rich fields for the opposition to harvest on. It wasn't too long ago that these happened, and if the opposition reminds the people properly, the voters will no doubt possess some dissatisfaction of the PAP when making their choices. However, the emphasis here is on "properly", because there is the danger of harping on it so much that it becomes another James Gomez incident.

Nonetheless, I think these factors pale in comparison with one single concern of the people: the economy. Like it or not, economy is always a chief factor in the voter's mind, and this is not restricted to Singapore. Even in the recent US election, the economy is the top priority in many people's mind. The polls showed both candidates close in the race until the economic diarrhea. The only exception I can think of in recent times is the 2007 Australian elections, where the excellent economy failed to secure Howard his re-election bid, but then again there were numerous other elements (some related to money) that overrode this factor.

This is the key strength of the PAP, and this economic crisis gives them a good chance. After all, with their financial security at stake, most people are less likely to take risks. Indeed, the PAP has a very legitimate claim that they have excellent track record in managing the economy, and this argument will sell rather well at this time. After all, I can easily imagine people saying, "Who cares about what our sovereign wealth funds have lost, so long as I can have my job secure and my investments recover?"

Furthermore, the PAP has a powerful argument that, in this crisis, there should be no dilly-dallying in parliament. Bills which will help the economy ought to pass in the greatest efficiency and the presence of opposition members in parliament will only serve to hinder the speed at which help reaches Singaporeans. Certainly, the opposition can counter by saying that any good policies will not face any delays and bad policies are better not passed. But this is a dangerous line to tread because all this while they have been telling the people to vote them into parliament so as to scrutinise such policies. I'm not arguing against the merits of having opposition in parliament; I'm merely highlighting the delicacy of the issue.

And needless to say, any special financial assistance by the government to the people will reflect well on the PAP during the election. In fact, it kills two birds with one stone: instead of a recession package and an election package later on, they can combine both into one.

I'm not sure what the opposition can do with regards to the economy. One possibility is to draft up a detailed and viable economic plan that will help Singaporeans in this current recession, and publicise it thoroughly and extensively. Even if it doesn't get passed in parliament - and it probably won't - it will show that the opposition is not there just to oppose. They can propose sound and viable ideas on their own, and therefore their presence in parliament won't jeopardise the country's route to recovery. The point is to let people know that they are well-equipped with economic knowledge, though usual problems (e.g. media bias) remain.

An Old Warrior Passes On

2008-09-30T19:37:00.000+08:00

This morning, Singaporeans woke up to the news of the passing of J. B. Jeyaretnam, the veteran political warrior who experienced an entire spectrum of political ups and downs of Singaporean oppositional politics.

While I may not agree with some of his views and actions, there is no doubt that he has impacted Singapore politics more than most other politicians. In fact, his shattering of the PAP's complete hegemony of the parliament in 1981 was considered, in the analysis of Singapore's political history, a critical event, a spike on the political radar just like Singapore's independence.

Many people, I believe, are looking forward to his return to Singapore politics, and see this warrior fight once more three years later. Indeed, I wonder how things would've been like. I'm uneasy with his confrontational style, but, just like in science, until someone finds a way that works, all ways to change the Singapore political scene are equally valid.

May he rest in peace, and his legacy lives on.

Building a Space Elevator

2008-09-23T10:20:00.000+08:00

Japanese scientists and engineers have set their sights on one of the most challenging tasks of a hard science fiction concept: the space elevator.

The space elevator, first popularised by Arthur C. Clarke in his novel Fountains of Paradise (an excellent read, if anyone's interested), appears to be a highly inexpensive way to travel to space, or at least to low-orbit space. It is a popular idea in science fiction and has also made it to scientific journals, being quite solidly based in proper physics.

The basic idea is that we connect a point on Earth to a geostationary satellite directly above it. This connection can be a tower (which is not feasible due to the weight) or merely cables that pulls a lift between these two points that are stationary in the reference frame of an Earth-bound observer. However, if we consider the Earth base as an anchor point and the cables plus satellite as a system, this system will start to swing sideways because its centre of mass is not in geostationary orbit, so we have to extend and attach some sort of mass beyond the satellite to counter this. In the novel, the construction started from the satellite and went both ways - up and down - simultaneously in such a way that the centre of mass stays in the orbit.

Of course, the cables will have a Coriolis force acting on it. On top of that, the length of the cable implies, even if it is of low density, a very strong tension throughout the cable. Therefore, this is the leap in this science fiction concept: a lack of such lightweight yet awesomely strong material. However, these Japanese scientists seem to have the solution: carbon nanotubes. But I think there is still a huge challenge since carbon nanotubes may not be strong enough yet, and mass production of large scale nanotubes are nowhere near a reality. Of course, this still does not take into account the multitude of engineering feats that has to be performed.

This space elevator, if ever built, will serve as a very cheap mode of space travel. Not only does it save the need to launch a space shuttle that gobbles fuel like an F1 race car, it also conserve energy just like a typical lift: as a lift comes down, it'll pull a weight of slightly smaller mass upwards, which will in turn act as a gravitational battery when the next lift goes up. It will also cut down the cost of space travel (to beyond geostationary orbits) by moving the launch site to the satellite, which bypasses a tremendous part of the energy consumption.

Personally, I'm sceptical about the plausibility of pulling this off. The material of the cable remains the greatest challenge, and I think carbon nanotubes are still way off from being a satisfactory material for such a construct. Moreover, as witnessed by the multiple failures in the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), new toys present new problems of their own, and this space elevator can be pretty disastrous if it fails in the wrong way. On top of that, such grand projects are bound to be costly, and I doubt Japan can pull it off by themselves. The LHC is funded by a collection of wealthy nations; I'm not sure if the space elevator will be any less.

Well, on the bright side, even if I'm wrong, at least there's a chance I can visit space in an environmentally friendly way. And what's more, the base station on Earth has to be on the equator (an off-equator geostationary orbit projects a sinusoidal curve on Earth's surface), so there's a chance the base station is in Singapore. If we reclaim southwards furiously enough, that is.

A Case of Similar Attractions

2008-06-09T21:21:00.002+08:00

On today's Straits Times (via SingaporeSurf), there was an article on the tourist attractions in Singapore being too expensive for most Singaporeans (digression: sounds like a contradiction to me, but that's just my phrasing; the holy Straits Times will never make such a lousy mistake). Well, well... it just sounds like those other articles that cling onto my brain with the same lifetime as an excited atom, until I hit upon this quote,

Ms Isabel Cheng, a spokesman for the Singapore Zoo, Jurong BirdPark and Night Safari, said that admission rates are 'relatively low' compared to similar attractions in Australia and the United States, and that the experience one gets is worth the money.

Okay I know too little about attractions in the US, and yes, relatively is a relatively ambiguous term. But compared to similar attractions in Australia? I'm not so sure. Of course, it does come down to how you define similar.

If we're comparing tourist-traps of both locations, like WhiteWater World and Warner Bro. Movie World in Gold Coast, yeah then perhaps that sentence makes sense, for an entry ticket into these places can cost up to hundreds per person and few hundreds a family. Singapore's, on the other hand, "would set a family of four back by $125 on average."

However, if we compare the same kind of attractions, like zoo to zoo, then I think it may not be quite on the mark. I remember going to the Melbourne Zoo (up to the gate, but not into it) and the entrance fee was like only A$20+ per person. Night Safari? You can always walk into the wilderness for free and get friendly with the kangeroos... or if you wish for a safe journey of higher yield, the Bonorong Wildlife Park I visited in Tasmania allows entry at about A$15+ per person. And many attractions like nature reserves and parks are free. The same goes for the annual Floriade festival in Canberra.

This reminds me of a discussion with Yao while walking through Floriade. Surely, the state government has to put in few hundreds of thousands of dollars at least in the creation and maintenance of this festival. Could Singapore do the same, with that grand scale and stunning variety? Our conclusion: maybe, but how much will the entrance fee be?

So I do think that the statement by that spokesman may not be quite right, depending on how it's interpreted. Of course, there's the second part on the value of the experience, and I think the judgement is best given by the individual.

A Disappointing Report on Mas Selamat's Escape

2008-04-22T09:30:00.003+08:00

After one month of tedious investigation by the Commission of Inquiry, the report on Mas Selamat's escape is finally released. No, wait. Not the full report, but just the executive summary. Okay, I think Ministry of Home Affairs got me here: when they said they "promised to give the public a full account", it is not equivalent to the complete report. How silly of me to assume so!

In any case, I've briefly glanced through the summary (yes, I'm that free despite my upcoming exams), and to be honest, I thought much of it was just telling us the obvious. It just acts as an official and substantiated confirmation of what many already knew: unsecured window, negligent guards.

The non-working CCTVs is something new, though. However, the summary does not go into details of these non-working CCTVs. For example, is it clear to any persons who see the CCTVs that they are non-functioning ones? And how widespread is this news of non-functionality? Do the guards know? Does Mas Selamat know? Non-working CCTVs are actually okay, in my opinion, so long as its lack of functioning is unknown to the "watched". The construct of the panopticon is, after all, one of the best surveillance concept ever conceived.

Another piece of information worth thinking about is the conclusion that Mas Selamat has been planning his escape and is just waiting for the right time. This is drawn from the fact that Mas Selamat emerged from the Locker Room with two sets of clothes. It is not clear to me what happened in exact, but I think the details are not of importance. What I am more concerned with is that, if Mas Selamat has planned it well, he would've informed and sought external help, and as such, it still puzzles me why the authorities firmly believe he is still in Singapore, and more so in the forests. Personally, I believe it is far likelier that he is off Singapore soil or, if not so, hiding in some obscure urban area. But then again, ISD made it sound like they have some intelligence we don't, so I suppose it is a waste of effort to speculate so much.

I know the COI was suppose to investigate on the detention centre and that only, but I was actually hoping that there were some checks into the poor coordination beyond the installation itself. Specifically, I think many people are concerned with the lack and delay of information from the police, and the immediacy (or lack thereof) of the clamp down across the borders. If the COI did not touch this, this probably means that we will never know, unless there is another inquiry, the reason why there is such poor coordination between the authorities and the public.

To be honest, I am a bit disappointed by the summary. It reveals far too little information and is not wide enough in scope. I think we can only be satisfied for now to listen to any further revelations in the parliament.

Three Thoughts on the Mas Selamat Fiasco

2008-03-09T20:47:00.002+08:00

With Mas Selamat, who probably has more posters of himself than the entire population of Singapore, still at large, many questions have been raised and pretty much none answered. Lots of accusations and demands of resignation has been thrown all over, but beyond these political mumbo jumbo, I observed a few aspects of this fiasco which interests me. First is the conspiracy theory that he was killed; second is the question as to whether he's still in Singapore; third being the holy grail of all questioners: how did it happen? Here are my takes:

In the lack of information, it seemed that some people has taken to speculate and believe the possibility that Mas Selamat was killed inside the detention centre and the authorities spun this story to cover it up, fearing the backlash of human rights activists and whatnots.

It hardly need to be said how absurd this is. Suppose this were true. Then a few weeks later the JI members, wondering why their ex-leader has yet to come back to them, will start making noise, and then the whole cover-up will be exposed. To avoid this, the authorities can "catch and kill Mas Selamat" some time later, but that would pose problems with regards to the autopsy and all. And of all that, wouldn't it be simpler to just announce that he has died by unnatural causes like heart attack? Or if that's medically dubious, then say that he choked on a chicken wing. Sure, there may be some questions raised, but as compared to this?

In any case, I truly believe that he has escaped. Now, is he still in Singapore? It all depends on whether it was a planned course or a spontaneous event. If it's the former, then he would be far away from Singapore by now. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that his best chance is to leave Singapore immediately before the authorities can raise the alarm, which is ASAP. If it was spontaneous, i.e. the chance just came and he fled, then he's probably still in Singapore (but of course with help) until the authorities cannot maintain the high level alert.

And the golden question of it all: how did he escape? I do not know for sure, though the supposed Independent Commission is to shed some light on this. But given official statements so far, I think one can do a Sherlock Holmes and pieces them together. We know that he escaped through a toilet. We also know that MM Lee mentioned something about complacency. We know that he's due for a family visit (i.e. the place is open to certain outside people). Now, if we assume, very reasonably, that there are two different kinds of toilet - one for outside people (and maybe the ISD people there) and one for inside people (like Mas Selamat) - and keeping in mind MM Lee's praise of winning the trust of the guards, I think the puzzle sort of comes together.

So that's my thoughts. And if anyone's wondering, I do not think that the four hours lapse is unreasonable. Oh, one more thing: I didn't receive the MMS of his face... how did the government know that I'm bad at recognising people?

How Wrong is the Principal?

2008-01-20T18:44:00.001+08:00

Following a Straits Times report of a principal dealing harsh words to a group of secondary 5 students, both the online and offline worlds have exploded in a furious mash of voices condemning the acts of the principal and dishing out voices of support and sympathy to the students. There were very few voices to the contrary, and even these are defending the general case and not the principal in specific. To me, it appears as if most people have jumped into conclusions, for I can yet determine if the principal spoke out of self-interest or did she, as the Minister of State for Education explained, meant well as she was giving the students a wake-up call. Certainly, she was wrong, but depending on whether she had ill intentions or not, she could be wrong in very different ways.

There are two possibilities: the principal wants a nice record for her school and herself because of it being a crucial factor to her salary and resume; there is also the possibility of the principal being truly concerned with the students, but chose very wrong words indeed. Both, of course, are wrong, but they are wrong in very different ways. There is also a common wrong in that she implied a low stature for the ITE, but I shall ignore this for the moment and consider the two possibilities.

Now, the first possibility seems to be the conclusion of most people's reasoning, for it was written in the newspapers that "she also stressed that she wanted 100 per cent passes in her school." Now, this is a very tricky sentence. First and foremost, we must note that it comes from the journalist's reporting, which may not reflect and may comprise a sensationalisation of the actual situation. Secondly, it is not clear where the source of this claim is. Was it from all the 27 students the principal spoke to? Was it from parents, who are more prone to overreacting as all parents will? Was it from one student, who may have misinterpreted the principal's words, for she could've very well said something like, "I want all of you to pass your exams" - a well-meaning sentence?

As for the second possibility of using wrong words, she might've made a poor decision in choosing to say what she said and doing what she did. Yes, it's wrong, but in my opinion - and I surmise many will agree with me - that this wrongness is not as dire as the first possibility, for after all it emerged from a true concern of the students. In fact, this can also explain the ITE comment. How likely is she to commit such a mistake? I don't know, but I know it is easy to make a comment (especially to a large crowd) and have it misinterpreted, having it happen to me numerous times.

I'm definitely not supporting the principal, but I'm not faulting her either. At least not yet. In my opinion, there is still a lot unknown to us. All these while, we have not heard the principal defend herself (other than in the initial report), for example. Therefore, for now, my conclusion is that there exists the possibility (and significant probability) that the principal is well-meaning but employed flawed words. It could be otherwise, of course, but how do we know?

Thoughts on The Australian Federal Elections

2007-11-25T06:06:00.000+08:00

After a lengthy campaigning that began long before I arrived in Australia, the federal elections here has finally concluded, with what the nationwide newspaper in Australia, The Australian, calls it a Ruddslide. Opposition leader Kevin Rudd, of the Australian Labor Party, swept off long time Prime Minister John Howard to ascend the throne.

Not that I have a particular interest in the elections, but being here you can't help not noticing the major headlines. And it is quite fascinating to observe several trends in Australia and see how they compare with Singapore's:

1) Everyone says it is a landslide victory for Labor and a devastating defeat for Howard's coalition. Base on projections, the seat count gives Labor 84 and the coalition (Liberal + National) 48. If I recall correctly, someone was not happy with a victory of 82 against 2.

2) Labor supporters appear to be everywhere, and support for Liberal is quite invisible. But that just means that Liberal supporters are more silent than the Labor opposition. Similarity in Singapore? Election rallies, remember?

3) Howard may even lose his own seat in Parliament, with the Labor candidate gaining a slim margin over him in his seat of Bennelong. Of course Lee Hsien Loong was nowhere clear in losing, but his 66% is... erm... not a very proud victory by Singapore standards.

4) The ballot here involves putting priority your preferences. That is to say, if there are three candidates, you rank them in order of your preference. I think what happens is that during the voting counting the one with the lowest vote will be eliminated, and the votes going to them in first priority will go to the voters' second choice. Needless to say, this kind of system is hardly necessary in Singapore. We're still looking at reducing the number of walkovers...

5) The voters have to vote for members of parliament and members of the Senate. With a 82-to-2, there's no absolute need for that in Singapore; it's all the same.

Ah well, that pretty much sums up my thoughts on this interesting event.

Blog Migration

2007-10-14T08:54:00.000+08:00

Due to some reasons, I will be changing the title of this blog and, because I want to retain all the previous posts in this blog, the URL as well. That is, I am moving this blog instead of creating a new blog.

However, a direct change of URL will cause many readers to be lost, especially those who do not visit this blog frequently. As such, I'm creating a transitional blog, which will house my postings for the time being and, in due time, announce the new blog URL. The transitional blog is at:

http://ablogintransition.blogspot.com/

I will leave this blog up at the old URL for about three weeks before changing it. So please change your bookmark to the transitional blog, and then again when the new blog URL is up. I'm terribly sorry for the inconvenience caused.

Free Burma!

2007-10-04T11:45:00.000+08:00

The Feeling of the Present and of History

2007-09-26T08:15:00.000+08:00

A drama is unfolding in Burma as I write. Monks and nuns, the most respected class of people in the Burmese society, are in open defiance against the ruling junta. Could it be just like two decades ago, when similar incidents culmulated in Aung San Suu Kyi's electoral victory? Right now, as it unfolds before the world's eyes, no one can guess where it will lead.

There is something that appears fundamentally different between knowing an event in history and an event unravelling in the present. In 1988, students took to the streets. Military suppressed them. Thousands were killed. It triggered elections. Aung San Suu Kyi won. The military refused to recognise election results. Their rule continued. That is history. It is as I know it. I was too young then to know it as it unfolded. I read it later in my life. I read it, as a piece of history, compressed and summarised. Time flowed in different beats: unimportant days were swept away in words no longer than a few seconds, and moments of importance were granted paragraphs after paragraphs that took minutes to read. The scaling of time when cast into words is twisted out of linear proportion.

But with the present, time is time. It is not scaled. It is not contorted. It is not shortened to slim boring periods and lengthen to fit critical events. One day is one day. One week is one week. One month is one month. The present becomes alive. Yesterday nuns took to the streets. Last week monks did so. Suppose a revolution were to come in a month's time. This month will not be a day long. It will not be a week long. It will be a month long. A month is a month. It is not like pages of a history book. Even if nothing goes on during this one month, time plods on unrelentlessly, unceasingly, unhurriedly.

That is, perhaps, why events unfolding as I read in the newspapers feel more real than events of the past. When I read an article about John Lennon's death there is a detached feeling about the whole incident. It is not as if I have not felt the loss of a great singer, but this loss feels muted. It feels as if the concrete of history has solidified. But when Luciano Pavarotti died, the concrete of history may have been laid, but it is still wet. Maybe this is the reason why people often say that times are getting more and more difficult.

Where will the events in Burma head from here? Will it be like two decades ago, a repetition of history? Or will a fresh chapter of democracy enter Burma's life? There is no flipping of pages to the important future events this time.

Feels so real, doesn't it?

The Government's Forced Prostitute

2007-07-14T20:06:00.000+08:00

(This post evolved out of my comments on a post entitled Silence is not always golden on theonlinecitizen. The post criticises the lack of scrutiny by Singapore's mainstream media on the government.)

In recent weeks, a chain of non-replies from the government concerning many issues, the termination of Alfian Saat as a relief teacher for example, has infruriated many bloggers. Even moderate bloggers like Bernard Leong advocated for more openness in the government's reply and letters to the media. And as inevitable as the Second Law, the mainstream media gets a beating for not scrutinising the government over these matters and not pursuing the non-replies.

With regards to the non-replies and silences of various government departments regarding numerous affairs, I believe it is something on which the government has to seriously change its attitude. Such attitudes, more than just make people lose faith in the government and the civil service, can propel others to believe in alternative (and not necessarily true) explanations. This may be dangerous as it propagates falsehoods on the government and undermine the trust between the civil service and the people. And with no official explanations, they can hardly be blamed.

However, I do not agree with criticising the media for not playing the role of the watchdog like in so many democratic countries. I do not deny - in fact, I strongly support - the concept of the media being the watchdog of the government. Being a proper, massive organisation with professional journalists to probe and analyse various aspects on and reports of the government and its actions, hardly any other is better at fulfilling this role. However, at this point I'd like to emphasize the need, if thus is the case, for more media organisations to emerge. Left to its own, a media organisation will inevitably adopt a particular stand or point of view, so a greater number means a greater variety, leading to a more balanced airing of different perspective on a single issue. It is as pointless as the current situation if the media turns from the government's lap dog to a mad dog which bites at everything the government has.

However, I can hardly fault the media for taking up the role it took. The rules and regulations governing the media - the Newspaper and Printing Act - effectively gives the government the control of information. The media, in my opinion, can only take a small portion of the blame, if at all. After all, which media would like to see its readership fall? Which journalist would like to work under a heavily scrutinised and censored environment? Blaming the media is like shooting the hapless messenger. Of course, there are always those who are truly sincere in their flattering of the government, but we must caution ourselves against a hasty generalisation just as much as believing everything the media prints.

Of course, one could argue that the journalists ought to sacrifice themselves for their journalistic pride and freedom of expression. Yet, if these employees of the media can be kicked aside and replaced so easily, can we blame them for being concerned with their jobs and income? After all, if they are unwilling to write favourable or refrain from criticising the government, someone else would be willing to do the job, and the situation on the whole remains the same. Or, can we blame them for bowing down now, so that they can stay longer to push the boundaries of these regulations as far as they could go? Let's not forget that, these people are in the public, their faces known, unlikes the criticising mass of the netizens who are largely anonymous, and whose job is not directly affected by what he or she writes.

Instead of shifting the blame onto the media, I would instead focus my criticisms on these regulations that bind the muzzle of the watchdog. The media is not, as David Marshall once famously said, "poor prostitutes" of the government. If anything, the media is a forced prostitute of the government.

Movie Review: Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix

2007-07-12T18:15:00.000+08:00

Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was the first movie I've watched in a cinema outside Singapore. A little on this: I went to the Dendy Cinemas at Canberra Centre on 110707, the first release date globally (and a day before Singapore). Yao rightly commented that this was probably the only moment you can see kiasuism in Australians; the queue outside the cinema was pretty intimidating when we arrived half an hour before screening time. This, however, can be understood as the cinema was free seating.

Back to the film, Phoenix is done quite well as a whole. In my opinion, it scores better than The Prisoner of Azkaban, which was too quirky and cliche to my taste, and The Goblet of Fire, which saw a very rushed pace and off-character acting. In terms of storyline, Phoenix did very well in building up the profile for Umbridge. It started off slick and smooth, and progressed at an excellent pace. But once it neared the end, things started getting too fast. I have read the book so I could at least follow what was going on, but Yao, who never, was quite lost at the end. It appears to me as if the director took his own time to develop the character of Umbridge and stew the plot into the appropriate mood, and then suddenly realised he was running out of time and flipped through the last few chapters. And suffering from the same flaw of GoF, the supposedly emotional and touching part was quite blundered. It just didn't fit into the flow, like a jarring rock breaking the surface of a smooth river. And there wasn't even the "mourning" part; it was as if Harry took a bowl of Forgetfulness Potion.

One of the major challenges that I thought would trip the filmmakers was building up Umbridge, but they amazed me: Dolores Umbridge was successfully ported to screen. Of course, there were some minor differences between the Umbridge from the book and the film, but the essence of her character was very well captured. Imelda Staunton, who plays Umbridge, brilliantly nailed the character's wickedness and provocativeness, sizzling with nastiness that would make one feel like stamping a boot into her face. Another excellent portrayal is Alan Rickman's of Severus Snape. Although he has quite limited screen time, he really did shine with what he was given. Undoubtedly, fans of Rickman and supporters of Snape will be thrilled. Helena Bonham Carter's performance as Bellatrix Lestrange was pretty good as well, but she could've gotten a larger slice of screen time. In fact, considering that the film is slightly more than two hours, the directors could've loosen up the pace of the ending which would, at the same time, give her more time on screen. Finally, whether it was because of irate fans or not, Michael Gambon's Albus Dumbledore was closer to the books now, and I think he did fine with that character.

For someone who has read the book, the story was adapted quite well; for someone who hasn't, he or she may be a bit lost at the end, but the movie is otherwise excellent. In fact, I would even say it is the best Potter movie so far.

Movie Review: Spider-man 3

2007-05-27T14:14:00.000+08:00

I have watched this super-hyped blockbuster about a fortnight ago, but has delayed a review until today because I needed time to think about the plausibility of the characters' attitudes and emotions. These twisting feelings, prima facie, appear realistic, but the more I think about it, the more I feel that it has been grossly exaggerated. But first, the other aspects of the movie.

The storyline sans the emotions has involved far too much of what a two- and a half-hour movie can handle. Many characters that play a rather important role had too little screen time, such as Eddie Brock a.k.a. Venom. (As a side note, some have commented that Venom was weak and defeated too easily, but I'm actually fine with that. In fact, I would rather have this than prolonged punching and throwing.) Flint Marko a.k.a. Sandman was another, having a powerful background story of a sick daughter needing money for medical treatment, yet has that part seemingly left hanging in the air (though I suppose future Spider-man movies will touch on this). The only part of the story I thought was nicely done was with Harry Osborn. In short, the storyline has too many branches and failed to develop most of them properly.

A consequence to this over-branching storyline (even if they were well developed) is its conclusion. Spider-man 3 suffers the same problem as The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King, i.e. too long an ending. (But you can hardly blame Peter Jackson: he inherited that problem.) I remember myself, while watching the end, wondering when the hell the movie was going to end.

Other aspects of the movie were good, such as the graphics and sound. The music didn't stand out, but it did its job in supporting the movie. The actions, in my opinion, were a bit excessive and at times I was bored with all those swinging and punching which never seem to end. The acting was okay... nothing outstanding, but nothing I am dissatisfied with. Tobey Maguire's portrayal of the emo Peter Parker was hardly convincing, but given the extreme contrast with the typical Peter Parker, I cannot really fault him. Then again, this could've been done on purpose.

So, back to the emotions, there are several parts to this: Spider-man's indulgence in his own fame and failure to comprehend the dynamics of his relationship with Mary Jane Watson; her reactions to his lack of understanding; and his actions and thoughts following the breakup.

Regarding the first, I think it failed terribly to convince me of its plausibility. Certainly, he can't possibly kiss Gwen Stacy without knowing that it will affect Mary Jane negatively. He would be too great a jerk not to realise this. But I think the other part - not fulfilling the role which Harry did instead - was quite possible, given Peter's responsibility and character.

As for her reactions to this, I think, with or without Harry's intervention, she would've acted the way she did. That is, her reaction is pretty much expected. So that's okay. But coming to Peter's emo state, I think it is again too far a swing. Sure, he would've felt angry, despaired and even vengeful, but for him to actually change his character totally, and seeking revenge in such a elaborate fashion is really going too far. But then, there's the symbiote to put the blame on.

So all in all, Spider-man 3 is pretty average as a movie, worth watching as part of a series, but on its own, it becomes those watch-it-if-you-have-no-other-movies-in-mind kind of movie for me.

The Thing About the Brotherhood

2007-05-06T15:22:00.000+08:00

The Intelligent Singaporean was one blog aggregator that was born shortly after the mrbrown incident and evolved with amazing speed into one of the local blogosphere's greatest assets. Created by inspir3d, its aggregation style is a one-man (or possibly one-team, since its operations are not well known to me) effort in collecting and publishing relevant blog entries. This is a remarkable task, considering that it is a daily effort and one has to use his intelligence and wisdom to sieve out good entries. More information about the Intelligent Singaporean can be obtained from this Singapore Angle interview.

Its style has varied over time before settling into the plain links we see today, and it remains largely an aggregator except for some occasional posts by a mysterious "Brotherhood". The Brotherhood posts appear rather frequently, approximately once every two or three days - almost as common as the "daily reads" that publishes the aggregated entries. Their articles are long by blog entry standards, and I find them quite difficult to read because of the obscure way the articles are written.

The way they operate doesn't really make things clearer. The Brotherhood consists of several online personae, and they are usually the ones to post the first comments on these Brotherhood posts. These comments, written in apparent coded messages, are sometimes incomprehensible to people outside of the Brotherhood, and it does add frustration to one who yearns for transparent and clear arguments.

Usually, I follow everything on the Intelligent Singaporean, but after reading the first few Brotherhood posts, I decided to skip them altogether. Apparently, I am not alone in not reading the Brotherhood posts: in the comments of this entry by Mr Wang Say So, he said that

"I really don't know much about who these "Brotherhood" people are, and the way they write, I don't think I will find out.

And somewhere further down, a person signing off as "Rob" said,

"Can we move on away from the Brotherhood stuff? There's a reason why I don't visit IS anymore."

That being said, I must emphasize that the aggregator part of the Intelligent Singaporean is still a very worthy read as it is before the Brotherhood appeared. And since inspir3d has allowed the Brotherhood to publish their articles there, I presume that their articles are generating a reasonable amount of readership, so perhaps their posts appeal to some other people. People like me can just skip the Brotherhood posts.

However, I do wonder if having the Brotherhood posts is the best arrangement. Their articles are essentially blog entries, and thus quite a different nature from the "daily reads". Wouldn't it be better to separate them into two different sections? For that matter, why doesn't the Brotherhood get a blog for themselves? Certainly, this will make the main aggregator site neater. Just imagine a newcomer to the blogosphere being introduced to the Intelligent Singaporean as the best aggregator for local sociopolitical issues in Singapore; it is quite likely that he/she will be confounded by the recommendation.

I have no say as to how the Intelligent Singaporean is run, and I certainly do not know the relationship between inspir3d and the Brotherhood (I suspect they are personal acquaintances). But I think the Intelligent Singaporean will serve its purpose better if the Brotherhood articles are not featured so prominently. At least, it should be given the same "status" as the normal aggregated posts.

The People's OB Markers

2007-04-16T01:09:00.000+08:00

Out of bounds marker, or commonly known as OB markers, is a term derived from golf, a game our ministers (in particular Lee Kuan Yew) are fond of, where it refers to markers that designate the limits of area in play. First employed by Goh Chok Tong, the term is used to demarcate the kinds of topics which should never be brought into critical discussion in the public domain due to its sensitive nature. Perhaps at the government's convenience, the exact boundaries of the OB markers are left blurred. Traditional OB markers include politics, race and religion, though these, being vicissitudes of our evolving society, may have already changed.

Two major cases of overstepping these OB markers are the Catherine Lim incident in 1994 and mrbrown's satirical article last year. There were no legal actions taken against them, but both were strongly reprimanded by the government. More serious cases are dealt with a heavy hand, such as the three seditious bloggers that stirred up racist remarks. Essentially, there is this invisible line that one will cross if the degree to which the issues were discussed were deemed too critical, to public.

All this while, OB markers have been used by the government to draw an imaginary line for the people, but this ministerial hike issue has shed some light onto another kind of OB markers, one that has existed since any people have assumed governing power in a democracy. They are the unspoken OB markers from the people, for the government. The people's OB markers.

There are some issues to which the government must avoid at all cost, such as corruption, to which a parallel can be drawn to the racist bloggers. And just like the government's OB markers, these people's OB markers are also blurred and shifting. Incidents like the NKF saga and the graduate mothers scheme hinted to the government at where these markers lay. Just as in the case of the government's OB markers, these episodes invited scorching criticisms or even worse, loss of votes.

In response to this ministerial hike, the blogosphere, in its instinctive anti-establishment eruption, has blasted the government in all directions. Even the pro-establishment, nation building press sees letters to the forums enunciating the writers' displeasure. Many politically-neutral bloggers like Kway Teow Man, NMP Siew Kum Hong and even mrbrown (who, by linking to insanepoly's colourful post, hints at his agreement with it) are in general not supportive of the hike.

This is another case of the OB markers being crossed. The limit has been overshot. The tolerance of the people broken. Sure, Singaporeans can take a lot of shit, as this TalkingCock article sadly but correctly comments, but I think this time they had enough. The people are saying, "this is too much." The OB markers have been breached.

When Catherine Lim went beyond the confines of acceptable discussion, Goh Chok Tong issued a powerful warning. When mrbrown exceeded the limit, K. Bhavani dished out heavy criticisms. Now, the government crossed the OB markers, and the people are raring to let them know. What the consequences will be, how far-reaching it will go, what repercussions there are, and how it will be played by the Opposition in the next general elections, remains very much to be seen.

Quantum Photosynthesis

2007-04-14T22:51:00.000+08:00

According to Physorg (arrived via Slashdot), our understanding of photosynthesis has been wrong all the while. According to a paper published days ago in the esteemed Nature journal, the photosynthesis process actually involves quantum coherence.

From the Physorg article,

"We have obtained the first direct evidence that remarkably long-lived wavelike electronic quantum coherence plays an important part in energy transfer processes during photosynthesis," said Graham Fleming, the principal investigator for the study. “This wavelike characteristic can explain the extreme efficiency of the energy transfer because it enables the system to simultaneously sample all the potential energy pathways and choose the most efficient one.”

They aren't the ones to first propose the idea, but they provided the first direct evidence of it.

Said [Greg] Engel, "[...] While the possibility that photosynthetic energy transfer might involve quantum oscillations was first suggested more than 70 years ago, the wavelike motion of excitation energy had never been observed until now."

As I understand it, it appears that there is coherence between the donor and acceptor molecules due to impinging photons, resulting in very rapid energy transfer. However, this is not my area; I believe this belongs to either the realm of biophysics or quantum chemistry. Nonetheless, from a physics perspective it is very interesting to see quantum mechanical processes manifesting all around us.

If this is indeed the case and the underlying theory can be worked out, it will be critical in our knowledge to build highly efficient solar cells. But this also means that the simple chemical interpretation of photosynthesis has to be thrown out of the window, as thus from secondary school or JC textbooks. Ah well, at least next time there's a need to cut the syllabus, it will be clear which one will go.

And as a last thought, if photosynthesis is a quantum mechanical process, then does that means that the leaf has both photosynthesized and not photosynthesized?

Movie Review: Mr Bean's Holiday

2007-04-11T12:33:00.000+08:00

I caught this movie last Wednesday, firstly, in hope that it can give me a good stress relief in this insanely stressed period and, secondly, because I think I deserve a little treat after a mad rush of deadlines and tests. The first Mr Bean movie totally blew me off: for a comedy it was first class. Three scenes in particular - the toilet incident, the simulator "enhancement" and Mr Bean's modification to the painting - stood out as those laugh-until-lao-sai kind of gags.

Unfortunately, this second movie is woefully lacking in those. If there's a funniest scene, it was when Mr Bean is trying to beg for money in the train station. But that hardly qualifies as hilarious when contrasted with the three mentioned scenes from the first movie. Looking back, this movie is perhaps geared for nostalgic purposes than for laughing: I remember more Beanish grunts and sniggering than quality Bean jokes.

The story is a simple plot but swung into a ridiculous curve. That is forgivable if it's funny; unfortunately it's only mildly so. Personally, I have the impression that this movie is based more on the cartoon series than the first movie or the TV series. And I have to say I find the cartoons a far cry from the TV series. This poor plot is probably because it was not written by Rowan Atkinson and Richard Curtis, the writers of the series and the first movie.

Considering that, according to Rowan Atkinson, this is the last time he will be playing Mr Bean, it is quite a sad way to end the series. For a comedy this is not worth watching, but for that purpose of the series' end, it is. Rowan Atkinson is so much more talented than Mr Bean and it has given him international recognition for his comedic abilities; it's time to move on.

Two Side Issues from the Minister Pay Hike

2007-04-06T19:02:00.000+08:00

Sidestepping the debates on whether ministerial salaries are justified, I'd like to discuss two related issue instead. They are not so much as original ideas, but something that I had came across months back in some readings, and browsing through all the commentaries and opinions on the blogosphere reminds me them. They are the government's selection process for a minister and their strategy for unveiling unpopular policies.

How does Singapore select its ministers? This question is actually not as obscure as one might think. At this point, it is important to clarify, in case of confusion, that the selection of ministers is highly different from MPs. In [1], ministers are compared to as "generals", while MPs and party activists are "foot-soldiers".

Most bloggers are right to think that being academically talented scholars is a criterion, but it is not the sole yardstick for minister selection. Quoting from [2],

On the recommendation of Ministers, MPs, senior civil servants, corporate leaders, and party activists, prospective candidates are invited to "tea parties" in groups of six to eight to chat informally with one of three Ministers, who take turns in meeting over 100 potential candidates a year. Some of these are invited to a second tea session, and those found suitable meet personally, first with [then] Deputy Prime Minster Lee Hsien Loong and then with the party whip. Those who clear the process to this point then appear before the selection committee of PAP Ministers, who probe extensively into a prospective candidate's character and motivation, and ability to be a "team player". After this, those still being considered are interviewed by Goh Chok Tong and Lee Kuan Yew. If they agree to the selection, the candidate is then given a final interview by the party's CEC to ratify the selection.

This is just the identification of a potential candidate. After this, the minister will be sent out to the grassroots for political work. He or she may be fielded in a constituency for elections a couple of years later. That's not all. From the same source [2],

Those among the selected candidates who are viewed as having minsterial potential go through an additional stage. They are given one-and-a-half days of psychological testing involving over one thousand questions. The PAP has adapted the system developed by Shell for its prospective new executive. The tests focus on three qualities - power of analysis, imagination, and sense of reality.

Thus it can be seen that a minister is selected through a rigourous process. Whether this process works in the future, given the supposed problem of lack of political talents and shifts in the political landscape, remains much to be seen. In addition, this selection process is elitist and may risk creating a disconnect between the leaders and population, as some has claimed already happening [3].

However, I'd like to point out that in [2], I have no idea which articles was referenced with regards to this process because the bibliography was cut off (what I have is a photocopied compilations of the two chapters).

Also seen in this ministerial salary hike is Lee Hsien Loong's way of announcing policies that he knows will create a wave of dissatisfaction amongst the public. Taking from [1],

... the government policies, largely crafted by Lee [Hsien Loong], were implemented with close attention to minimizing opposition, using an incremental approach. The emphasis lay in cooperation between the government and the public to solve a puzzle; the "solution" was to be arrived at gradually by the government, as it were, taking people along with it, step by step. For example, proposals to reduce the employers' contributions to the CPF were not produced with a flourish, out of a hat. They were gradually unveiled as a hypothetical last-resort policy, which became increasingly perceived as inevitable. The initial step was for Lim Boon Heng, Minister without Portfolio and secretary-general of the NTUC, to introduce the issues involved at a seminar in Pasir Ris. Although the presentation had been carefully prepared, the reception was quite chilly. However, the idea had really been just to broach the topic. The real presentation was done through a large number of discussions in the party, at the grassroots, and with trade unionists. The policy was formally announced in November 1998. By this time, many had been convinced that the government's proposals made sense.

Following this, a few paragraphs down, the authors summarised their strategy well,

The lesson was that, if you have to change your policy, prepare the people early and explain why the change is necessary.

Eseentially, instead of dropping a huge and smelly fart at one go, they let the gas out slowly and as noiselessly as they can, so that the public anger can be spread out over time and thus thinned out. From past events like the quoted CPF cut to the recent GST increase, it can be seen that this strategy is widely employed and does work rather well.

Nonetheless, it will be rather interesting to observe how the Internet may affect this strategy. Previously, any grouse is spoken over the coffeshop table and diluted by the time of the next election, but with blogs increasingly pervasive in local politics (particularly the anti-establishment camp), these unhappiness are recorded in words (see [4]) and may resurface when the need arises.

[1] Diane K. Mauzy and R. S. Milne, Singapore Politics under the People's Action Party (London: Routledge, 2002), 'Chapter 9: The successors', pp. 123.
[2] Ibid, 'Chapter 4: The People's Action Party - the Structure and Operation of a Dominant Party', pp. 48 - 49.
[3] See, for example, Minsters salaries - lets have a re-focus by theonlinecitizen and Earth to YPAP: Is there life out there? by kitana
[4] See the comments of Beating the dead ministerial salary horse by Aaron Ng.

A Case for Ministerial Salary Increase

2007-03-31T23:34:00.000+08:00

The blogosphere has been blaring their discontent and frustration at the recent ministerial pay hike. And of course, any attempts to support the government's action, like this one on the Young PAP Blog, is like an ant being flushed down a toilet bowl. But these anti-pay hike bloggers could just be flogging a dead horse, couldn't they?

But I have been asking myself, is this pay hike justified, if we assume the Singapore Inc. line of thinking? This thinking goes along the idea that Singapore is run like a company, where its citizens are economic units. They are valuable as long as they can provide economic benefit to the country. Of course, with this comes a lack of true loyalty and belonging to the country. Not many will hesitate given a chance to leave Singapore and never come back. Not many will serve NS because "I must" but because "I have no choice". Not many will think of sacrificing for their homeland. Not many will feel deep attachment to this nation.

Now, like some impending storm approaching me, I see this dire situation as more and more of a reality, and if I assume so, then I ask myself if the pay hike is justified. For if people are not willing to sacrifice to be ministers, it is imperative for the government to attract talent with whatever means possible. Yes, there may be people who are willing to do it for low pay, but being a minister requires so much more than talent. It requires the excellent people, and if the country cannot get them to sacrifice themselves for it, then it has to hire them. A "why do they need so much money" kind of argument simply doesn't hold because the money is simply to "buy" them from the private sector.

So to me, it is logical to increase ministerial salaries so as to close the gap between their pays and their equivalents in the private sector, if we operate under the assumption that Singapore is being run like a company. Of course, a country should not be run like a company in the first place, and because I take this stand, therefore I disagree with the increase. But still, my opinions should not disrupt the logic of Singapore Inc. -> ministerial pay hike.

Free Will (Part III½)

2007-03-30T23:24:00.000+08:00

(This entry is some sort of a summarised version of my current thoughts on free will. The previous three entries can be accessed here: Free Will (Part I), Free Will (Part II), and Free Will (Part III). It is a comment to another blog entry, and it doesn't really add much new stuff, hence the III½ status.)

The following post is an edited comment to a blog entry in the PH1101E Reason and Persuasion blog. The original blog entry discusses a book review talking about the criticism of René Descartes' belief in dualism. Comments on the blog is part of the assessment for the module.

I am not going to comment on Damasio's criticism on Decartes, or Dennett's review on it, but my interest lies on its consequence - that is, the consequence of the inseparability of the mind and the body - more specifically, its effect on the arguments for free will, a subject which I have long been interested in.

One of the strongest arguments for the existence of free will is dualism, that the mind is separate from the body, and is not subjected to physical laws that our bodies experience. See, for example, anomalous monism. And the reason for free will hiding in dualism is due to the nature of science.

Our physical laws are either deterministic (such as Kepler's and Newton's Laws) or probabilistic (for example, quantum mechanics and theories of open systems) by nature. While we still do not know how our brain behaves, it is reasonable to assume that whatever laws that govern the physical processes in our brains has to be of this nature. In such a situation, how can we have free will then, if "choice" is either a victim of causality or total randomness? What is so special about our brains that admits free will? If the equations that govern the motion of our neurons is the same as those governing the electrons in my laptop, what is stopping my Windows from displaying a blue screen of death proclaiming "I think, therefore I crash"?

This is where dualism comes in a valiant attempt to rescue free will from the onslaught of science. If our choice-making mechanism is not subjected to physical laws, then perhaps we will then have free will, because our choices are not totally consequences of things we've done before or something so random that it is out of our control.

This dualism concept, however, does not sit well with me. On top of the "ghost in a box" problem described in the final paragraph of this post, I find that dualism explaining free will is just inventing something up to satisfy our need to have control of our choices. We can very well do away with it without sacrificing any knowledge of our world. This is an Occam's Razor approach to knowledge, but that is a philosophy I adopt.

I personally want to believe that I have free will, but I recognise that Nature does not care about what we like or not. She just is, and if dualism (and hence free will) does not exist, we do not have a choice.

On Descartes' Scepticism

2007-03-16T21:54:00.000+08:00

The following post is an edited comment to a blog entry in the PH1101E Reason and Persuasion blog. The original blog entry discusses a few general ideas about René Descartes' Meditations I. Comments on the blog is part of the assessment for the module.

I shall attempt to discuss the question

Is Decartes' skepticism interesting?

To me, his scepticism is certainly interesting. Considering the "what if I'm dreaming" part, it is indeed a question worthy of pursuit even if it may not ultimately fetch an answer. This "what if I'm dreaming" is just like the "brain in a vat" situation, or now also "the Matrix" situation. It satisfies man's desire to know more about himself and the world. Such scepticism challenges established notions and ideas most people have assumed to be true, and only by knowing that they may be flawed can we proceed on to find the "truth". (After all, if humans have never asked this "what if I'm dreaming" question, we would not have the movie "The Matrix"!)

Yet perhaps the level of scepticism Decartes is applying to his analysis may be too extreme. After all, not all knowledge can be attainable and not every question can be answered. For example, the simple question of "does God exist?" is probably one which cannot be proven concretely to be true or false. If one seeks to find answers in such a manner, throwing out an idea once there is something doubtful about it, then he or she may very well be heading towards nihilism.

A more important question to ask, then, would be "is Decartes' skepticism useful?"

To that, my answer would be a "yes". At least, for myself being a scientist (or scientist-in-training), the value of scepticism can never be underrated. Throughout scientific history, old ideas are being overthrown by new ones - I would go as far as to say that discoveries in science is about overthrowing old ideas - and if scientists never strongly and unceasingly doubted established ideas, these new discoveries would never surface. Physicist Richard Feynman puts it most clearly when he said,

"Doubt is clearly a value in the sciences. Whether it is in other fields is an open question and an uncertain matter. I expect in the next lectures to discuss that very point and to try to demonstrate that it is important to doubt and that doubt is not a fearful thing, but a thing of very great value."
- "The Meaning of It All", pg. 28

Yet it must be noted that if one bears complete scepticism, throwing out everything that has a bit of uncertainty, then he or she will end up throwing the whole of science out of the window. There has to be a measure of "acceptability" of an idea, and in science this is often described by "beyond reasonable doubt through experiments". So scepticism is only useful when applied moderately.

Feynman left the applicability of scepticism in other areas of knowledge unexplored (at least up till before this paragraph), but I think it is also quite clear that doubt is very useful in many other fields. For example, one needs to apply a fair amount of scepticism when reading a commentary or argument, and when analysing messages from politicians and biased opinions.

In conclusion, the ability to doubt is important, but there must be a limit to the amount of scepticism one has. Decartes' scepticism is certainly interesting and probably useful as long as he has a reasonable measure of when to stop doubting.

NUS Open House 2007

2007-03-12T23:42:00.000+08:00

This year's Open House booth for the Faculty of Science was at the LT27 Foyer, which in my opinion is a much better location than last year's S16 Foyer, which was so lacking in space that it looked like the inside of MRT trains during peak hours. However, probably because of the larger space, the place looked emptier, but I somehow had a feeling that there were less people this year.

In any case, Physics Department maximised the use of the space and scattered our tables and experiments over the place. Here are a few selected photos of the events.

The booth by the Physics Department. It shows the three main tables and part of the astrophysics equipment. Another table is not shown in the picture.

Talk by Prof Sow in LT28.

Discussion among the brains of the department. First from the left is my supervisor Dr Yeo Ye.

Telescopes, posters and images (on laptop) from the astrophysics arm of the department. For the new batch there is an additional specialisation in astrophysics.

Mirage bowl. It's a new one as compared to last year's, which was full of scratches, so the image of the pig as seen here is clearer.

Resonance bowl. You can see the 内功 of the demonstrator from the jumping and vaporisation of the water. Just kidding... the vapour is a result of me adding liquid nitrogen into the water.

Taking advantage of the space, we had the angular momentum spinning chair this year. The spinning rate can slowed down or quickened depending on the moment of inertia of the person (adjustable by holding out or tucking in the weights respectively).

This year's theme is sponsored by Lego. And large Lego pieces were given to each department to construct various models. This is a chair I've constructed. It goes to show why I should not be in architecture or civil engineering.

Of course, the department's trademark show, the superconductor, is down at the centre stage of the show, but since I've talked about it extensively last year, I shall spare everyone of the repetition.

However, I had two thoughts about this Open House. First was a comment posed to me by a mother. She commented that "physics must be very hard". My immediate response then was, "not really, but as long as someone puts in effort, he will be able to do it well." That was the truth, of course, but thinking about it, I could've responded in a much better way, namely, that there is no "easy" or "hard" courses; any course can be easy or hard. What's more important is the interest in the subject, which will probably determine what is easy or hard more than any other indicators.

This led me further to ponder about why many people have the perception that physics is hard. Does it have anything to do with how physicists appear to the general public (i.e. the public portrayal of the likes of Einstein, Bohr, Feynman etc.)? Or is there some fault in the local education system that causes people to dislike physics? After all, there is a drop in the proportion of Singaporeans in the physics cohort, replaced by enthusiastic and motivated students from China and Malaysia. I think this question deserves to be addressed in more detail.

Another thought about the Open House was a diagram in the Science brochure (which I cannot find right now). It's like a three-piece flow chart, showing Singapore's economy developing from a labour-based economy to a technical-based economy to a knowledge-based economy. An era was attached to each economy, with the first being from 1950 to 1970, the next from 1970 to 1990 and the last being 1990 and later. (All these are based on my memory and can be wrong. But I just need an approximation to illustrate my point.) This is fine, but then with each economy was also attached a "qualification". I can't remember what was placed for the first (probably something like unskilled labour). The third was a science degree. For the technical-based economy, the 1970 to 1990 era, a "Engineering degree" was attached. While I understand what the brochure is trying to say, I think it gives an unfair description of an Engineering degree.

Firstly, what the diagram is trying to say is that the economy is moving from depending on unskilled labour to specialised technical skills in the earlier years, and now from technical skills to analytical skills. While a degree in Engineering equips one with a specialised skill, it hardly means that it is stuck with a "technical-based" economy. I could be wrong, but I think the Faculty of Engineering would've taught its students on being flexible with their knowledge, so that they won't be tied down to a specific skill.

Well, so that's for NUS Open House 2007 for Science!

Gmail the Organiser

2007-03-09T12:00:00.000+08:00

Even as I plunge into my ISM on open quantums systems, I am keeping a lookout for the latest journal articles published on the Los Alamos National Laboratory pre-print archive, which is where almost all the final drafts of articles to be submitted to journals are uploaded. This is so as to keep track of the latest developments in that field and get an idea of the kinds of project I can do.

However, the archive, being a site for pre-print, sees a whole lot of articles everyday. Even in the sub-section for quantum physics alone, there is on average ten articles a day, out of which I can usually find one or two that is related to open quantum systems. Add that up over days and weeks and months, I think I will have a substantial collection of articles at my disposal. Of course, the problem then comes: how do I organise all these journal articles and, especially, how to know what each of them discusses about? The abstract should give one an idea of what the paper discusses, but if you have a hundred articles, reading through all the abstracts can be quite maddening.

That's when Gmail comes in handy because of its features. One, it uses labels, which means I can attach different keywords to each article, making a search on a particular idea easier. Two, it has an amazing amount of space, so no worries that I'll max out the space given. Three, it's not housed in my computer, so unless Googleplex collapses, I can be assured that I won't lose the articles. Four, Gmail will be accessible to anyone who needs to search for articles in open quantum systems, e.g. my supervisor.

Right now, the Gmail account is still empty... because I have yet to go through any of the articles I've collected in details yet. But I cannot foresee any troubles with this plan. Yet.

A Zeroth World Singapore

2007-02-24T13:30:00.000+08:00

Splashed over headlines of today's newspapers is a story about Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew's speech at the Tanjong Pagar Chinese New Year dinner, envisioning Singapore in "the upper half of the First World" in "10 to 20 years". A very bold prediction, but how likely is it to happen?

The whole article highlights, building on MM Lee's speech, the economical and infrastructural developments Singapore has achieved to move towards this direction, which I must admit is pretty impressive. There's the Esplanade to drive the arts scene in Singapore, to the residences inside the city area to diversify the character of the CBD, there is little doubt that, in these aspects, Singapore can reach the standards of New York, London or Paris - cities MM Lee cited as Singapore's goals.

But I think the greatest barrier to this dream comes not in the economic aspect but in the social part. Becoming New York or Paris means embracing diversity and allow nonconformities, celebrate mavericks and encouraging differences. Are we ready to let go of our "conservativeness", the oft cited reason for the presence of anti-gay sex laws? Note that it does not mean that people should not be conservative; it means that society as a whole should have space for both people with conservative thoughts as well as people with liberal ideas.

Are we ready to not look down on people who chooses a different path in life? That is, not the typical "study study study and get a degree" path, but one which sees people dropping their studies for their dreams, such as - or in fact, especially - in the performing arts, where it has been traditionally viewed as a dead end.

Are we ready to recognise people who does not have a degree? Are we ready to commend not just "degree-less" people who are successful, but also anyone else who tries to be? Are we ready to see failures as just another facet of life, something that everyone should have no qualms about making?

Are we ready to not just tolerate but welcome other religions - not just state-sanctioned ones - and beliefs? Are we ready to accept gays, lesbians and bisexuals? Are we ready not to laugh or make jokes about effeminate men or tomboyish girls? Are we ready for people kissing (heterosexual and homosexual) in the public without others getting offended and write to the newspapers to complain?

The answer to these questions, I believe, parallels that of the acceptance of revolutionary ideas in science. Max Planck has a quote which describes this very well.

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck

Is Singapore ready? I think not in 10 or 20 years' time.

The Oily Business in Global Warming

2007-02-03T20:29:00.000+08:00

Yesterday, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has published their fourth assessment report, concluding that global warming is indeed occurring, and is likely to be the result of human activities. That's what environmentalists have been arguing for years, but now with some scientific heavyweight behind them.

But does that mean global warming will be the focus of governments around the world? It's not gonna be easy, judging by where the money lies...

Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

(Click here for the full article.)

From an academic viewpoint, this is blatantly wrong (though this is probably the norm in politics and business). It's not wrong because it opposes an academic body. It's not wrong because "global warming is a fact and their activities are harming the environment", which is what they are trying to dispute in the first place. It's not wrong because they only care about their profits.

What is wrong with it is the fact that they "select" the results. That's not how things should be done. Academic research is not carried out like that. Yes, one can start with the hypothesis or proposition that global warming is natural (i.e. not caused by human, or at least oil companies), but if it turns out to be otherwise, one has to just accept it. If one doesn't, it can be considered academic fraud. Imagine the pressure on the scientist to do so if he/she knew that $10000 is appended to the equation.

But then, what I've described above is the ideal scientific method, a code in which all scientist should adhere to. In real life, however...

That's the sad fact in life. And I believe it won't be long before we see some papers on what ExxonMobil wants. Well, at least Shell acknowledges global warming...

The Science of Procrastination

2007-01-16T10:44:00.000+08:00

So, a new year has just started not too long ago. Made your New Year Resolutions? If yes, then here's some scientific excuse for yourself not to follow them.

According to this article from ScienceDaily (which I arrived via Slashdot), it concluded that

Most people's New Year's resolutions are doomed to failure

Most self-help books have it completely wrong when they say perfectionism is at the root of procrastination, and

Procrastination can be explained by a single mathematical equation

Heh heh, this is quite interesting. As the professor explained, "Perfectionism is not the culprit. In fact, perfectionists actually procrastinate less, but they worry about it more." Well, does that mean that we should not aim for a too well-rounded resolution or goal when setting one?

Steel says motivational failures such as difficulty in sticking to diets and exercise regimes -- frequently the focus of New Year's resolutions -- are related to procrastination because impulsiveness is often at the root of the failure.

So a resolution or a goal should be one which is carefully thought out, not one that is made over dinner or during a conversation. I think the typical goal-setting plan should kick in here. To avoid procrastination in a plan, one has to set many mini-goals within a reasonable timeframe to motivate one to continuously achieve.

Interestingly, the article points out that

The good news is that willpower has an unusual capacity. "The old saying is true: 'Whether you believe you can or believe you can't, you're probably right'," Steel says. "And as you get better at self control, your expectancy about whether you can resist goes up and thus improves your ability to resist."

But what if a person doesn't believe in the existence of free will? Then there is no willpower to talk about, and if one is meant to procrastinate, one has to procrastinate. More motivation to find out if free will exist then? Oh well...

Procrastinate now without worry, for you have the backing of science!

Nuclear Power in Question

2007-01-12T00:54:00.000+08:00

In the 80s and 90s, nuclear (fission) power was greatly shunned by the public, with many advocacy groups called a complete ban of it. This was partly due to the proliferation of nuclear weapons as well as several disastrous nuclear accidents.

In recent years, nuclear power is back in the limelight, not as the object of criticism but as a possible alternative to the growing energy crisis. Considering that it is clean (no carbon emission) and its fuel not running out any time soon, it looks more and more promising as an alternative candidate with the rising price of oil and environmental concern with coal (for example, a coal-burning power plant releases radioactive products into the air, exposing people to radiation several times more than a fission power plant). Other promising alternatives like solar and nuclear fusion are still not practical.

However, not all is smooth for nuclear power. The journal Nature carried a recent news article (obtained via Slashdot) that demonstrated past methods in disposing nuclear waste is not as safe as previously thought.

Quoting from the article,

A fast-moving alpha particle knocks into hundreds of atoms in its path, scattering them like skittles. Worse still, the radioactive atom from which the particle comes is sent hurtling in the other direction by the recoil. Even though its path is even shorter than that of an alpha particle, the atom is much heavier, and can knock thousands of atoms out of place in the ceramic.

All this disrupts the crystalline structure of the ceramic matrix, jumbling it up and turning it into a glass. That can make the material swell and become a less secure trap. Farnan says that some zircons that have been heavily damaged in this way by radiation have been found to dissolve hundreds of times faster than undamaged ones. So if the ceramic gets wet, there could be trouble.

There are, of course, other concerns, such as how one can lower the chances of nuclear accidents like the Three Mile Island accident. And then of course there's always the controversy linked to nuclear weapons. I cannot, however, comment from a technical point of view, since my course on Nuclear and Particle Physics has only started, but I guess that even after that, my knowledge is still too insufficient.

Free Will (Part III)

2007-01-09T00:46:00.000+08:00

(This entry is the third part of my train of thoughts about free will. The previous two entries can be accessed here: Free Will (Part I) and Free Will (Part II).)

This is an absurdly overdue entry. But there is a reason for the delay - the concept of free will has burrowed into the depths of obscure philosophy, and each logical step has to be taken carefully and examined thoroughly, and often ending up in a terrible blur. Since the last post, I've read numerous articles and had several discussions, and I think it's time to pull some meat slices out from the murky soup.

In summary, the previous two entries talked about how free will cannot be possible if our physical laws are deterministic (classical mechanics) or random (quantum mechanics). Since then I explored the various underlying assumptions of this view and how they can be made to be otherwise. One possibility Yao has highlighted to me was that there is a concept that is not subjected to physical laws, which is, for a lack of a better word, "reason", or the connection between cause and effect.

By this I mean something like, for example, the presence of a mass will result in a force - (Newtonian) gravitation. The presence is the cause and the force is the effect. The connection is the ability to see that the presence of mass causes the force. If I apply a force on an object, the object will accelerate. In this case, force is the cause and acceleration is the effect. To be able to understand that this cause "causes" the effect, is what I mean here by "reason".

But what does "reason" has to do with free will? Well, nothing that I know of! Yes, "reason", as far as I can see, has nothing to do with free will. But all Yao is trying to raise is the argument that there may exist certain mental process that are not subjected to physical laws, and it is there that free will can exist.

The trouble with this concept is that, perhaps, it's just inventing something up to satisfy our opinion. That is, there is no meaning in objectifying the bridge between cause and effect, because there is simply none! It's somewhat like saying, there's an apple in a basket and I put in one more apple. So 1 + 1 = 2, and now I have two apples in the basket. And free will hides in that equal sign.

But if we assume that everything is subjected to physical laws, then how can free will exist? One notion I've heard/read more than once is that although the basic laws, the first principles, the underlying equations... they're all deterministic (or random), when you add them up, you'll get something extra. So the equation becomes 1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples + 1 free will. Putting it another way, if we can make computers as complex as the brain, then it will have free will.

But does it? Does a sufficiently complex mind have free will? Or does it have the illusion of free will?

The sad thing is, we may not even find out, because mathematically that is impossible, thanks to mathematical genius Kurt Gödel. Quoting from this article which touches on his theories on logic,

Another implication is there is no algorithm, or recipe for computation, to determine when or if any given computer program will finish some calculation. The only way to find out is to set it computing and see what happens. Any way to find out would be tantamount to doing the calculation itself.

According to this, it means that when a certain complex mind, build up by basic blocks of deterministic calculations, is presented with two options, whether its choice is fixed or based on free will, there is no simple formula, or a shortcut, to find out. The only way is to run through the algorithm of making the choice, which is the mind making the choice itself.

Zooming out, we see more and more experiements "infringing" on free will. From the same article, an experiment on making random actions showed that

brain signals associated with these actions occurred half a second before the subject was conscious of deciding to make them.

Of course, this does not mean free will doesn't exist. As the article summarises,

the conscious brain was only playing catch-up to what the unconscious brain was already doing.

Which means we may not have control over the unconscious brain, there is still this glimmer of hope that we may have control over our conscious brain and hence our choices.

But that experiment was conducted decades ago. This more recent one has shown that, in an experiment involving fMRI,

the authors were able to successfully predict whether the study participants would decide to purchase each item.

Again, this doesn't mean that free will doesn't exist. What it has showed is that many other measureable factors play a part in decision-making. And these may even be undeterministic (i.e. free will).

But somehow, as science rumbles on, I'm beginning to feel that the arguments for free will wearing thin...

Movie Review: Curse of the Golden Flower

2007-01-05T09:19:00.000+08:00

It's not a movie I was dying to watch; it's not even one which I would consider watching. But since some friends have asked me to join in, I thought I might as well do so, since I haven't watched a movie some time, and I was pretty impressed by Zhang Yimou's Hero as well.

So how does Curse of the Golden Flower measure up? It's certainly not Heroic, but I do think it is better than Zhang's other film House of Flying Daggers. It has Zhang's trademark use of staggering visuals and colours in his scenes, but it also has (at least for his internationally successful movies) his trademark of a simple storyline spun into a confounding plot.

I'm not sure if that was deliberate... a choice of his... but I thought he could do better with a deeper or more meaningful story. This one is mainly about betrayal and assassination within the royal family, and once one strips off the confusing excesses, the plot is pretty straightforward. And this movie is a love story/soap opera, which isn't my genre of movies or stories.

As mentioned, Zhang's use of colours and breathtaking visuals are excellent, as usual, though this time most of the scenes take place indoors. The music, on the other hand, is rather crappy. There was consistent use of choir-like music (no words though, just singing of the tune) which seemed to be a blend of those Latin choir pieces that Hollywood likes so much nowadays and traditional Chinese orchestral music. I don't know what other people think, but I found it disappointing. In any case, I did not stay during the credits to listen to Jay Chou's song for the movie, so no comments on that.

Oh, if the music director did a bad job, the costume designer was even worse. Before watching the movie, I already heard complaints of scantily clad actresses in the movie (excluding those that are not supposed to look nice). And they certainly weren't exaggerating. Looking at the progression of Zhang's movies since Hero, I see a trend of females wearing less and less. I suppose in his next few movies we can expect ancient Chinese women prancing around in bikinis or nipple rings.

Lastly, the acting was disappointing. It had strong and experienced artistes: Chow Yun-Fat and Gong Li, but I didn't see any brilliance in them. Okay, Gong Li wasn't that bad, but I was far from impressed by Chow Yun-Fat. For some reason, I doubt he is suitable for that role. As for Jay Chou, I think for a newcomer he's fine. Not unexpectedly, he's not very capable of showing expression (he somehow seemed to be stuck eternally in his boh chup (nonchalant) look), but if he puts in more effort in his future movies, he'll turn out to be a decent actor. After all, given his huge fan base, most movie producers would like to have him in.

Before I end, I must say that I currently may not be in the most lenient mood to judge movies. Having finished, from renting VCDs, certain critically acclaimed movies like The Constant Gardener and The Pianist, it'd be hard for movies to look good in my eyes. Curse of the Golden Flower is decent, but it could've been better.

Science of Santa

2006-12-25T19:33:00.000+08:00

North Carolina State University has published a news release that argues the scientific viability of Santa Claus, backed by the university's professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering.

From the article, Santa and his elves have

advanced knowledge of electromagnetic waves, the space/time continuum, nanotechnology, genetic engineering and computer science easily trumps the know-how of contemporary scientists

and how they used scientifically fantastic innovations to carry out his duties.

Naturally, this post is written somewhat in a casual manner, ignoring the technological viability of some of methods used. It is pretty interesting to see imagination and science explain what appears to be impossible phenomena.

However, impressive explanations like

a sophisticated signal processing system filters the data, giving Santa clues on who wants what, where children live, and even who’s been bad or good

sounds pretty Nineteen Eighty-Four to me...

Singapore's Stand on Antipersonnel Landmines

2006-12-21T20:05:00.000+08:00

In the Nobel Exhibition, the International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL), an organisation that won the 1997 Nobel Peace Prize, was featured extensively. Two sets of displays in the artefacts section as well as a short film in the Creative Milieus theatre are related to them, making them one of the most highlighted organisation in the entire exhibition.

Founded in 1992, their primary objective is to completely ban the use of antipersonnel mines in the world. Their success was phenomenal. From a coalition of a handful of NGOs, it has grown into a network of more than a thousand groups. One of the major successes was their win of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1997, but the greatest achievement of their work was the Ottawa Treaty.

However, many of the powerful countries in the world refused to sign the treaty. They include the United States, China and Russia. Many have their own reasons for not doing so (such as the US, who needs landmines to protect South Korea from North Korea). That was what I found and prepared for my duty as an exhibition guide. However, curiosity nudged me to find out more, especially with regards to Singapore's status.

It turns out that, expectedly, Singapore has not signed the Ottawa Treaty. More than that, Singapore is a producer of landmines (see this ICBL newsletter, third paragraph). This is kept a low profile in Singapore, which is not surprising since this is something not to be proud of. Even Indonesia has recently signed and ratified the treaty. As a matter of fact, most guys who have been through the army would be able to attest that there is at least basic landmine deployment training.

This led me further to ponder on the question: would Singapore ever deploy landmines? My personal opinion is no. The Singapore Army's main purpose is to defend Singapore, and its greatest strength lies in deterrence. Even if we take into consideration the unlikely possibility of Singapore entering a conflict, it is unlikely that we are on the offensive. I doubt Singapore will start planting landmines along Woodlands. However, there is the possibility of pre-emptive strikes, which Singapore occupies a foreign land to act as a buffer against foreign attacks. Would landmines be a possibility then? Probably, but then the chances of this happening is very low.

In that case, why doesn't Singapore sign and ratify the treaty, since we're probably not going to use landmines anyway? My guess is that there are two reasons. First, remember that the army's strength lie in deterrence. And the knowledge that we possess and may deploy landmines contributes to this deterrence. For all we know, we may not even use landmines in times of conflict. The situation is similar to the serial numbers on polling cards.

My second guess is that, it does not benefit Singapore to sign the treaty. Let's face it: Singapore is a pragmatic country. Our government is pragmatic. A larger part of the population is pragmatic. What would signing the treaty give Singapore? Putting it another way, what harm will it cause Singapore if it doesn't sign the treaty? In addition, with countries like the US and China not signing it, Singapore is safe from international ridicule.

Personally, I support ICBL's goals and agrees with their principles. I would be most delighted if Singapore signs and ratifies the Ottawa Treaty. But frankly, I don't expect that to happen soon. That's life. Life sucks. Get used to it.

Ubuntu - Linux for Human Beings

2006-11-25T17:31:00.000+08:00

One of the major hurdles one finds when attempting to install Linux on his/her computer is the installation itself. Not only do you need to partition your hard disk if you have not done so (unless you have a physically second hard disk), you also need to know your computer specifications (like what ethernet card it is using). And some Linux distribution installers are not able to recognise SATA hard disks which most laptops (including mine - IBM Thinkpad T43) use. This is the case when I tried to install the powerful Debian which all SPS computer uses.

Fortunately, Ubuntu cuts out most of that job. Okay, partitioning of hard disk still remains but that's not really a screwy job as it may sound, though it may be daunting if it's your first time tweaking with the foundations of your computer. I recommend using the Disk Management in Windows to partition the hard drive itself; it is easy to use, comes along with Windows XP, and since it is running on that partition itself, there's little risk of destroying your Windows partition. (Note that two partitions are needed, a "\root" where the Linux will run and a small "\temp" with the memory size same as your RAM.) Apart from partitioning, Ubuntu's graphical installer really makes it friendlier than other distributions' text based installer.

The default interface is Gnome, one of the most popular interfaces for Linux (if you want KDE, go for Kubuntu). Slick and clean and not too different from the Windows interface, the only dissatisfaction I have with it is the huge icon sizes. As compared to Windows, these Linux interfaces' greatest advantage is the multiple desktops, which is most wonderful (but not limited to) situations when you're running programs that uses a copious amount of windows (like Adobe Photoshop or its open-source equivalent, The GIMP; I was tempted to say Internet Explorer for its poor popup blocking abilities, but since IE7 is out, I shall forgive it).

Most programs in Windows have an equivalent in Linux. OpenOffice.org is Linux's equivalent of Microsoft Office (OpenOffice.org is also available in Windows, for those who are too poor to own an original copy or too lofty to have a pirated one). There's of course Firefox in Linux that's equivalent to , well, Firefox in Windows! Thunderbird also works in Linux, or you can also have Evolution Mail which comes pre-installed in Gnome. Ubuntu also has music/video/CD players, as well as instant messaging client Gaim, or if you want an MSN clone, aMSN.

For programs like Thunderbird and aMSN that don't come installed, all you need is a working Internet connection. Then, under the Applications menu (the Start menu equivalent of Windows), choose "Add/Remove...". It works something like the "Add/Remove Programs" in Windows' Control Panel, but unlike the latter which only searches for programs installed in your computer, it goes onto the Internet and search for lists of programs available (from the Ubuntu repositories, which can be modified if you wish). Installing and uninstalling involves just a few clicks. However, installing programs that are not on the repositories can be a headache; fortunately, that situation seldom surfaces.

The best thing about these programs, other than, to a computer programmer, being open source, is that it is free! No more having to fork out hundreds of dollars for programs; no more having to resort to piracy! Of course, that alone means that many Windows-only program like ABAQUS and AutoCAD are not available, which is why I recommend keeping your Windows system alongside with Linux (i.e. dual boot). Alternatively, you can use Wine, a Windows emulator that runs well for quite a handful of Windows-only programs. In fact, according to Wine's official database, games like Diablo 2, Counter-Strike, Warcraft III and World of Warcraft works pretty satisfactorily. But if it is your work computer you should not even have such abominations in it in the first place...

Another advantage I find in Linux is that it takes much shorter for the system to start up. For my laptop to boot Windows completely, I gotta wait for about half a minute before the login dialog drags itself onto screen, then another two or three minutes for Windows to stop spinning my hard disk. For Ubuntu, it takes less than half a minute for the login dialog box to appear, and less than ten seconds after logging in for the system to be ready. Talking about speed!

Other minor plus points about Linux is that it naturally comes with a C compiler (GNU Compiler Collection, or "gcc"), as anyone with formal education in C programming would know (however, it doesn't come pre-installed in Ubuntu, though a "apt-get install build-essential" in the Terminal will resolve that. Gnome also has an amazing amount of screensavers. Also, you can fetch files from any account in your Windows system (which goes to show the security, or lack thereof, of Windows systems).

Personally, I strongly urge one to try out Ubuntu. If anything, take it as an exploration into the various dimensions of computers. For once, don't be a bluepill. Live no longer in the Blue Screen of Death. Free your (computer's) mind.

Wee Shu Min Wikipedia-ed

2006-11-24T09:07:00.000+08:00

This morning in my dish of daily websites, I came across something familiar:

Her name is really becoming an icon... except in a bad way, that is. Poor thing...

Fastest Spinning Black Hole on Record

2006-11-21T09:16:00.000+08:00

Just had my SP2172 presentation on Monday at 1600. And then, an article closely related to our project appeared just less than 24 hours later.

This is especially related since during the Q & A session, people asked on the existence of a theoretical limit on how fast a black hole can spin.

As usual, I emphasized the more relevant parts.

Spinning black hole is fastest on record
15:39 20 November 2006
NewScientist.com news service
David Shiga

A black hole has been found to be spinning faster than ever seen before, a new analysis suggests. The finding supports the idea that only fast-spinning stars can collapse to create powerful explosions called long gamma-ray bursts.

To measure the spin of black holes, astronomers measure the size of the discs of matter that orbit them. A spinning black hole drags space-time around with it as it spins, boosting the speed of matter in orbit around it. That allows the matter to orbit closer in without getting sucked into the black hole itself – so the faster a black hole spins, the closer matter can stably orbit around it. [Pandemonium: technically, this means that the radius of the event horizon (or the point of no return), becomes smaller as the black hole spins faster; this agrees with our theoretical analysis and computer simulation.]

Watch an animation showing the difference between spinning and non-spinning black holes.

But the innermost edge of this disc is too small to see directly. So previous measurements of black hole spins have had to make assumptions about properties such as the tilt of the disc to Earth's line of sight.

Now, astronomers have measured the spin of a black hole with a new method that requires fewer assumptions. The team was led by Jeffrey McClintock of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts, US.

Hot gas

McClintock's team examined a black hole in our galaxy called GRS 1915+105, which lies about 36,000 light years away. Matter gets hotter as it gets closer to the black hole, so the team used X-ray observations from NASA's Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer to measure the temperature of the gas in the disc.

They found the innermost stable orbit around GRS 1915 is so close that the black hole must be spinning at nearly 1000 times per second – the fastest ever recorded.

"The application of this to understanding black holes and black hole physics are really quite important," McClintock told New Scientist. "It’s the most exciting thing I've worked on."

But a second study of GRS 1915 suggests that the spin could be lower, according to an analysis of the same RXTE data by Matthew Middleton of the University of Durham, UK, and his colleagues.

Stellar collapse

Chris Done, a member of Middleton’s team, says their analysis suggests the spin is “substantial but not extreme”. They argue that X-rays scattering off of electrons in the disc make the temperatures appear higher than they really are. This gives the illusion of a closer-in disc, and therefore a faster spin for the black hole, they say.

But if McClintock's team is right, the black hole is spinning at 98% of the theoretical maximum rate, which is calculated by how fast stars can spin before they collapse to form black holes.

The observation provides support for the idea that gamma-ray bursts – fleeting but powerful explosions – are produced by fast-spinning stars.

In this scenario, a black hole forms at the centre of such a fast-spinning star and some of the remaining stellar material forms a disc that spirals into the black hole.

High spin

The interaction of the black hole and the disc produces jets, which emit copious amounts of gamma rays. But the star has to be spinning very quickly when it collapses for this disc to form, and some astronomers have expressed doubt that stars would be spinning fast enough at this stage in their lives.

The new research may quell some of those doubts. "It says sometimes stars do find some path for dying with a huge amount of rotation in their middle," says Stanford Woosley of the University of California in Santa Cruz, US, who is not a member of the team.

Christopher Fryer of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, US, who is also not on the team, agrees. He says it is "strong evidence that nature can get the high spin rates in stars to produce gamma-ray bursts".

McClintock says he hopes that analysing similar observations for other systems will allow them get spin rates for half a dozen more black holes within the next two years. "We're going to apply it as widely as we can," he says.

Journal references: The Astrophysical Journal (vol 652, p 518)

Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society (DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.11077.x)

Sometimes you just wonder why such related articles cannot be published a day earlier.

Machine Gun Sentry

2006-11-17T00:52:00.000+08:00

Samsung has developed a machine gun-equipped sentry that will be planted along the demilitarised zone border in South Korea (outside of it, of course). They have even produced a commercial for it, and frankly I found it pretty funny, in particular the way the "enemies" move "in stealth". Says a lot about South Korean's (or at least Samsung's) impression of North Korea military.

You can read the news and watch the video clip on this news site, which I got to via Slashdot.

GST: Reshuffling the Cards of Wealth?

2006-11-14T16:12:00.000+08:00

Okay, the bomb is out, and the blogosphere is, expectedly, buzzing like a disturbed hive. The primary reason outlined for the hike is

to finance the enhanced social safety nets, needed to help the lower income group

That sounds great, huh? Why then is the blogosphere so angry? Is it an instinctive response to blast any penalising policies of the hegemonic government, or are they seeing something I cannot? Seriously, if we raise taxes to help the poor and bridge the rich-poor divide which is dangerously becoming a threatening social issue, what's wrong with that?

Unless you're in financial difficulties, the rise in GST won't pose much problems for you. Certainly with my stingy lifestyle, it will be the least of my worries. Of course, the poor still has to buy stuff and hence the increase will affect them, but as mentioned, there are social nets that'll help them overcome this barrier. Furthermore, it is usually the more affluent that makes more purchases, so they will be the one who pay more. And if this money they pay gets channeled back to the poor, then isn't that a good idea?

Of course, there are better ways to fund this purpose, specifically a rise in income tax instead of GST. However, income tax hikes will pinch the richer citizens much harder than a rise in GST, and since most (if not all) of the MPs and ministers earn five digit salaries every month, they naturally won't support such a motion. (This assumes that our MPs and ministers are selfish, which I see no reason why not to, given our fanatically meritocratic and elitist system. It's no use challenging this assumption; it is a fact of reality.) So that leaves GST as the second best option available (enlighten me, anyone, of better plans that I've missed).

That is not to say I support the hike, however, at least not yet. The principle of the hike is good, but I must wait for the details first before deciding if I really agree with the hike. It is no use if the "safety nets" mentioned is just an appeasing farce, an empty gesture. It is redundant if these nets have holes big enough for the likes of Tan Jee Suan to fall through. In another words, my official stand is: I'm neutral with the hike; I need to see the details before making my decision.

A Scientific Reason Why We Should Emigrate

2006-11-04T11:09:00.000+08:00

(...or why we should air-con the island.)

Sorry if this is turning into a news aggregator, but these few days I've really been lacking in time, thanks to an upcoming report deadline for my SP2172 project as well as three term tests. So, again, no more comments on this articles except for some highlighting of interesting details.

(From New Scientist via Slashdot)

Cool down – you may live longer
11:20 03 November 2006
Roxanne Khamsi

The refrigerator is used to lengthen the life of your food, and a new study suggests a similar principle could prolong your life, too.

Researchers have found that lowering the body temperature of mice by just 0.5°C extends their lifespan by around 15%. In the future, people might be able to take a drug to achieve a similar effect on body temperature and enjoy a longer life, they say.

The only previously proven method of significantly increasing the lifespan of an animal has been through a restricted calorie diet.

Bruno Conti at Scripps Research Institute in La Jolla, California, US, and colleagues designed genetically engineered mice with a specific brain-cell defect in a region called the lateral hypothalamus. The defect forces brain cells into "overdrive", causing the region to heat up and become warmer than in a normal mouse.

Female benefit

Since, in mice, the lateral hypothalamus sits just 0.8 millimetres away from the brain’s body-temperature-controlling thermostat – called the preoptic area – it was tricked into thinking its body temperature was too high, causing the mouse to cool down.

The average body temperature of the genetically engineered mice was about 0.6°C lower than that of their control counterparts.

Even this small decrease in body temperature appeared to have a noticeable effect on lifespan, extending their lives by 12% to 20%. And the decrease in body temperature extended the lifespan of female mice more than male mice, the team found, although they are unsure why.

Free radicals

Caloric restriction, another method shown to extend animals’ lives, also causes a decrease in body temperature, Conti notes. In his study, both groups of mice ate about the same amount. In fact, the genetically engineered male mice ended up about 10% heavier than the normal male mice.

Conti says the findings show it is the lowering of body temperature – and not necessarily the consumption of fewer calories – that plays the most important role in extending lifespan.

This may be because the body burns less fuel when it is at a lower temperature, which results in the production of fewer free-radical compounds that damage cells and promote the wear and tear of ageing. Previous studies have shown that worms and fish that have decreased body temperatures live longer.

Conti says that in the future people might be able to take a drug that specifically targets the preoptic “thermostat” area in their brains to trick the body into cooling down slightly. Coming up with such a drug “will be very challenging”, but he hopes it would allow people to live longer without cutting back on the calories.

Journal reference: Science (DOI: 10.1126/science.1132191)

3 Best Stalls in NUS Canteens

2006-10-31T16:39:00.000+08:00

Okay, here's a meme I'm starting off. I'm hoping that, through this meme, I, as well as others, can know which stalls in NUS canteen are more popular and thus perhaps more worth eating there.

Instructions:
1) List three stalls (in no particular order) in NUS canteens that you like the most.
2) Explain briefly your choice for each.
3) Tag three people (NUS students and staff... duh!).
4) Link back to the person who tagged you so that backlinks/trackbacks will appear.

1st Choice: Char Kway Teow stall in Arts Canteen
Tucked at the quiet corner of the canteen, there are very few reasons why I would like this stall. Firstly, the food is slow. Also, the selection is extremely minimal. Yet, manned by a friendly couple, their Char Kway Teow is amazing, though it may be considered unhealthy by some. The orders are even flexible; you can ask for a $2.50 plate (despite the listed standard $2.00 and $1.50), or request for more egg, for example.

2nd Choice: Chinese Food stall in Science Canteen
Except for the sotong which I felt was a bit substandard, the food there in general is pretty satisfying. The price is reasonable, the food is great; the only thing I can complain about is the length of the queue. Not surprised though... Try to go there after 2: the queue will be short by then. Most of the time it's not opened for dinner though.

3rd Choice: Yong Tau Foo stall in Science Canteen
To begin with, the stall has some pretty neat selection of food (unless you're eating dinner). The stuff there tastes pretty nice, and what's more, their fried bee hoon or fried noodles make a good breakfast (together with an egg and a slice of luncheon meat).

Tagged:
Currytan
NinjaLZG
warhammer

The "Erotic" NTU Lecturer: A Discourse on Morality

2006-10-27T18:50:00.000+08:00

By now I presume every single (online) soul in Singapore has watched the antic video clip of the NTU lecturer showing some ludicrous feedback about him. No doubt all found it hilarious, so does Yao when I first showed her, but she had reservations about the lecturer's actions.

She felt that the lecturer's behaviour is unbecoming of the supposed way he is expected to carry himself, because by screening such crass comments, he is simply encouraging his students to become cruder. He is, in a way, consciously or unknowingly, influencing them to think this way. This, to her, is inappropriate, be it for pure entertainment or scoring popularity among students.

She raised an example. Suppose in a lecture the students all like pornography. Is it then okay, on moral grounds, for the lecturer to screen pornographic materials to entertain the students? If the lecturer forbids that because of his own moral standings, then can we say that the lecturer is upholding his/her code of conduct, that this is an absolute moral expectation from people of his/her stature? If the lecturer allows, does it then mean that there is no absoluteness in morality? That morality is defined by the majority, or more appropriately, the society at large?

(At this point I think it'll do good to apologise to Yao and everyone reading this, in case of any mistakes I might've made in representing her stand above. After all, I'm writing this from my memory, which is mired by my own arguments.)

Naturally, from her comments on the NTU lecturer, it is clear that, in the hypothetical example above, she believes that the lecturer should choose the first option, because this conduct is demanded of him/her, and that despite morals changing over generations, there are some morals which are completely absolute, such as this, and the wrong in murder, for example.

She further expounded that in the past, after the age of mankind's amoralism, people did not stick so closely to these absolute morals because they are not easily known and understood. In addition, akin to technology, morals have been changing, and mostly for the better, and we get closer and closer to these absolute morals. Where this source of absolute morality comes from or by what it is driven, she is not so sure, but she believes there is some factors that forms this basis.

However, I beg to differ. I believe that morals are everchanging, never absolute. This does not mean that I expect the lecturer in the hypothetical example above to choose the latter option, mainly because morals are not defined by those inside the lecture theatre at that instant of time. It is formed, shaped and influenced by history, politics and society of the entire civilisation over a period of time. But the fundamental idea remains: morals are never absolute. Never fixed. Shifting with time. Changing always.

Slavery is largely seen as a barbaric act today, but it is quite widely accepted in many societies in the past. Then okay, now not. Suppose in the future because of overpopulation, governments have begun selective killing of genetically inferior human beings. And they have been doing it for, say fifty years, such that it has developed into a social norm. Universally accepted. Agreed by all. Is that bad?

Morals change. We cannot use today's moral standards to judge yesterday's actions. In fact, it we were to use our morals to look at times other than ours, we will probably be repulsed by what the humans were/are doing. We are stuck in today's morals; what we see in the past and in the future will not appeal to our moral tastes. It's just like asking someone from the ecclesiastical past to judge the role of today's institutionalised church.

Expectedly, our arguments glanced off each other as we assume differing bases. She assumed that there is some unyielding force driving morality; to me, morality is everchanging. Of course, we did not come to a consensus, but it was a good philosophical exercise nonetheless.

The Trollish Online Community

2006-10-25T09:27:00.000+08:00

Unless you have been living in a time capsule (or in Tekong) for the past week, you should've been aware of the ugly saga unravelling around Wee Shu Min. Her stinging reply, together with the apology of her MP father, has smashed open a sluice gate of criticism that ranges from chiding to outright insulting. Even Technorati, at the current moment, has "Wee Shu Min" crowning the top search.

I'm not going to comment on my opinions, since they're largely similar to other bloggers' like Kitana's. What I'm more concerned with is the insults, down to the personal level, of many blog entries and comments, as well as the Sammyboy forum where it all began. The criticism of her physical appearances... nasty words that has no relevance to her reply... in essence, the trollish behaviour of a significant group of the online community, is as disturbing to me as Wee Shu Min's original reply.

Previously I have always thought that when one resorts to insults, it means that he/she has lost the argument on the level of reasoning. This is exactly the character of a sore loser, refusing to step down when he/she has clearly been defeated. But given other blog entries with more rationality, I doubt this applies to the trollish conduct of these people.

Another situation whereby insults will be hurled is when an highly emotional incident is freshly out of the oven, where many people are still hot-headed and beyond the point of reasoning. But this incident has been out for quite a while. Insults are still ongoing, from what I observe, though it is now at a lesser intensity, but I wonder if it is the case of people gaining control of their head or just that the news is getting old. But the bottomline is, insults are still flying all over.

Thinking about it, I have arrived at the conclusion that this is perhaps the nature of the Internet: free and anonymous. Lack of the need for accountability or reply. That is when people find and do thrill in dishing out such insults. Or perhaps satisfaction. Or perhaps it is just some revenge for her strong words to the working class, or a vendetta against someone associated with the government.

Yet, this does not justify their actions. Such personal criticisms are uncalled for. They do not advance anything; in fact they widen the rift between the two sides. And it is sad that many of the online community subscribe to this behaviour. Yes, I know such comments deserve to be ignored, just as I've told myself many times, but the fact that they exist tells something.

Maths Skills Inversely Proportional to Confidence?

2006-10-19T19:09:00.000+08:00

This article is pretty interesting to note, considering my aptitude and gratification in mathematics (primary/secondary level), as well as Singapore's excellent performance in the subject itself. Perhaps this explains the general misery of our school students?

I'm not in the mood to comment on it at the moment, but I've highlighed several parts worth noting.

(From CNN, 181006)

Confident students do worse in math; bad news for U.S.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Kids who are turned off by math often say they don't enjoy it, they aren't good at it and they see little point in it. Who knew that could be a formula for success?

The nations with the best scores have the least happy, least confident math students, says a study by the Brookings Institution's Brown Center on Education Policy.

Countries reporting higher levels of enjoyment and confidence among math students don't do as well in the subject, the study suggests. The results for the United States hover around the middle of the pack, both in terms of enjoyment and in test scores.

In essence, happiness is overrated, says study author Tom Loveless.

"We might want to focus on the math that kids are learning and just be a little less obsessed with the fact that they have to enjoy every minute of it," said Loveless, who directs the Brown Center and serves on a presidential advisory panel on math.

"The implication is not 'Let's go make kids unhappy,"' he said. "It's 'Let's give kids better signals as to how they're performing, relative to the rest of the world."'

Other countries do better than the United States because they seem to expect more from students, he said. That could also explain why high performers in other nations express less confidence and enjoyment in math. They consider their peer group to be star achievers.

Even efforts to make math relevant may be irrelevant, says the study, released Wednesday.

Nations that try to teach math in terms of daily life have the lowest test scores.

All this is not easy to compute. Math teachers typically don't avoid enjoyment, confidence and relevance in their math lessons. They strive for those things.

Speaking on behalf of those teachers, one educator took exception to the study's conclusions.

"If I'm a math student and I don't perceive myself as confident, you think I'm going to major in it? The answer is no," said Francis "Skip" Fennell, president of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and another member of the federal math panel.

"Is enjoyment important? You bet it is. Is confidence important? You bet it is," Fennell said. "If we don't have those variables, we can't compete."

Yet Loveless says pleasing kids has come at the expense of mastering skills.

His findings come from the 2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study, a test of fourth-graders and eighth-graders across the globe. Along with answering math questions, students were asked whether they enjoyed math and whether they usually did well in it.

The eighth-grade results reflected a common pattern: The 10 nations whose students enjoyed math the most all scored below average. The bottom 10 nations on the enjoyment scale all excelled.

Japan, Hong Kong and the Netherlands were among those with high scores and lower enjoyment or confidence among students.

Within a given nation, the high-confidence kids did better than their peers. But that changed when students were compared with a different peer group. Even the least confident students in Singapore outscored the most confident Americans.

Loveless is not suggesting it makes sense to undermine kids' confidence or make math revolting. But he says the U.S. should rethink "the happiness factor," as he puts it.

Math textbooks in the United States, for example, tend to have colorful photos, charts and stories to please kids, he noted. In other nations, the texts strictly have math.

Fennell said engaging, relevant lessons are important. But he agreed with Loveless that every lesson should be about teaching math, not simply providing a fun class activity.

Movie Review: Rob-B-Hood

2006-10-14T20:19:00.000+08:00

Rob-B-Hood is Jackie Chan's latest gongfu flick that revolves around a comedic theme of an adorable baby. Packed with glowing stars that appeal to all generations - the internationally renowned Jackie Chan, the heartthrob Louis Koo and the established comedian Michael Hui - this movie is somewhat similar to those Hong Kong movies of the 80s and 90s, but it deviates slightly from the normal Jackie Chan movies one would associate with.

For once, Jackie Chan plays the bad guy - a gambling addict and a thief - which is quite different from the roles in his previous movies. This is rather queer given that he once said the characters he play are always upright so as to impart the appropriate moral values to the children watching his movies. Perhaps that will explain why, so as to stick to this rule, he ended up being a good thief and repented his actions eventually.

Given this interesting twist, it could've been a fresh perspective to Jackie Chan's line of movies, but this is totally crushed by a confusing storyline combined with unrealistic turns of events. Added into this terrible mixture are the stereotypical movie elements like a fanatic triad boss, resulting in a concoction of plot that smelled like melted plastic.

In addition, the movie was full of cheap laughs with toilet jokes (the typical jokes of a comedy involving a baby), and with gays and effimate men. Perhaps it's these ruthless jokes on and making fun of the latter that turns me off. One can argue that this is not the director's and scriptwriters' intentions, but it is a very weak case from the way the situation is cast.

But apart from the storyline, the other aspects like sound effects and music are pretty average. The gongfu stunts are something to watch for, as always with Jackie Chan movies. Together with thrilling stunts (though, understandably, at a lesser intensity and frequency) and comical moves, I can easily associate it with the older Hong Kong movies Jackie Chan produced.

Nonetheless, overall, it leaves a pretty bad taste in the mouth. I think one advice Jackie Chan has to take is that the storyline of a movie is very vital, which probably explains why his recent productions has not been as popular or classic as his old ones. To those reading this, I advise you not to watch the movie unless you have spare time to throw and spare cash to burn.

Hip-Hopping MPs

2006-10-13T21:26:00.000+08:00

There has been a big hoo-hah over the recent news that some twelve, post-65 MPs are going to dance hip-hop at next year's Chingay Parade. In general, many see it as a lame attempt by PAP to "open up" to the younger generation, and some were pretty cynical about this move.

Personally, I cannot figure out why people are getting so worked up over this issue. I mean, yeah, if they're trying to connect to the younger generation, I won't deny it is a lame attempt. There are certainly better ways to connect to us, and those who are at least somewhat concerned with politics will be more interested in seeing greater engagement than rabbitt-ing about. And what's more, I doubt all youths like hip-hopping; I for one dislike it.

But still, this outcry begs the question: why create a big fuss about it? They are, just like they said, having fun. I'm not sure how tough the training is gonna get - whether it is back-breaking or not - but as long as they think it is worth it, it is worth it. If it doesn't affect us the slightest, so be it. Let them do it. Why the noise? Is it another instinctive reflex of a typical online Singaporean to criticise every move of PAP that appears to try and get in touch with the people?

The only worry I have is that the MPs use time that they're supposed to do their parliamentary or constituency work to prepare for the event. I doubt that is likely, given the intense eyes on them. That leaves them with using their personal time and/or time to do PAP work. That's pretty fine with me. Oh, and as long as they don't get too excited and injure themselves, I think there's no harm to that too.

In any case, I probably, just like in previous years, won't watch the parade. To be frank, I won't give a hoot about it even if Lee Kuan Yew decides to breakdance, just as long as he doesn't break his neck. No, it's not because I fear for his life. I worry more for the image of Singapore, if the foreign media starts putting headlines like "Singapore's Founder Dies While Breakdancing".

The Ig Nobel Prize 2006

2006-10-12T22:43:00.000+08:00

I'm a bit late in announcing this, but still it's better than never. The winners for the Ig Nobel Prize for 2006 has been released last week. The winner for the physics prize goes to Basile Audoly and Sebastien Neukirch for their painstaking study on why dry spaghetti breaks into more than two pieces when bent.

I particularly like the work that earned its author the prize for mathematics: Blink-Free Photos, Guaranteed, which in short calculates the number of times you have to take for a group photograph to ensure that no one is blinking.

In case you think that these are just some fancy fabrication of a highly imaginative mind, it should be clarified that these are real works done by real people and (for academic research) published in real journals/books. The rule of thumb of the Ig Nobel Prize is "research that makes people LAUGH and then THINK". Take for example the 2005 prize for fluid dynamics awarded for the study of the pressure build-up inside a penguin when they defaecate.

Sometimes the awards are given as parodical criticism, such as the 1996 prize for peace to Jacques Chirac for "commemorating the fiftieth anniversary of Hiroshima with atomic bomb tests in the Pacific", and the 1994 prize for mathematics to The Southern Baptist Church of Alabama for their statistical estimate of "how many Alabama citizens will go to Hell if they don't repent".

This year's ceremony included some pretty interesting events, such as the 24/7 Lectures, in which some of the top researchers in the world (real ones) are invited to give on, their field of research:

FIRST: a complete technical description in TWENTY-FOUR (24) SECONDS

AND THEN: a clear summary that anyone can understand, in SEVEN (7) WORDS.

I am really interested in how Frank Wilczek gave his 24/7 Lecture on Dark Matter. I'll watch the webcast when I'm free.

Oh, did you know that a Singaporean was awarded an Ig Nobel prize before? It was the 1994 prize for psychology to a "practitioner of the psychology of negative reinforcement, for his thirty-year study of the effects of punishing three million citizens of Singapore whenever they spat, chewed gum, or fed pigeons."

Cultures of Creativity

2006-10-03T20:42:00.000+08:00

NUS will be hosting the world tour of the Nobel exhibition, Cultures of Creativity. It will be held from October to January at the University Hall. Admission is at a modest $2 ($1 if you're a student, senior citizen, or NSF; free if you can convince the ticketing office that you're a child) and will go towards the bursary fund to held needy students.

I've signed up to be a guide for this exhibition and have just attended the briefing. The exhibits are already here, but I've not gotten to see them yet. Still, from what the Vice Dean described, this exhibition looks set to be amazingly entertaining and informative, full of enticing displays and original artefacts, all brought together in sleek technological beauty.

Do pass the word around and let everyone know about this rare event. From what I understand, it is not easy nor cheap for NUS to organise such an event! They'll be getting the Minster for Education, Tharman Shanmugaratnam, to inaugurate the exhibition - if they can get a minister to do such a thing, it's bound to be big!

News Flash: Nobel Prize in Physics 2006

2006-10-03T20:28:00.000+08:00

Fresh from the Nobel Foundation, the Nobel Prize in Physics 2006 has been awared to John Mather and George Smoot. Their works in cosmology - the discovery of the blackbody nature of the cosmic microwave background (CMB), the radiation of wavelength 1.9 mm which is a remnant of the Big Bang, as well as its non-uniformity at different directions - are responsible for fetching them this honour.

Seldom has an award been given to an astrophysics or cosmology field. This discovery of the blackbody nature of the CMB is one of the five main observations that supports the Big Bang theory. And their discovery of its anisotropy (non-directional) is one that hinted at the incompleteness of the Big Bang theory, resulting in the birth of the cosmological inflation theory, which is the topic of my SP2171 project last semester. You can read some general information of this story in the outline of my project.

Smoking Ban on NUS Grounds

2006-09-28T08:45:00.000+08:00

As most NUS students and visitors will know, there is and has always been a campus-wide ban on smoking. There are signs that declare NUS as a no-smoking zone, especially at strategic locations such as the entrances to the school. I'm not certain what exactly the punishment is, though I've read that warning letters are frequently issued to first time offenders. (And what about subsequent offenders?)

According to the Code of Student Conduct issued by the Office of Student Affairs,

The University believes in providing an environment of clean air for everyone on campus
and so has made our premises generally a "smoke free" zone. In consideration for our non-smoking colleagues and fellow students, we ask that all smokers respect this non-
smoking policy, which is applicable in all campus buildings, eating places and areas with regular human traffic such as bus stops and sports grounds.

While I see where this argument is coming from, I certainly do question if this rule is practical or even reasonable. Firstly, one must emphasize that "campus-wide" really means campus-wide, including the halls and residential areas. Yes, so that means that for students who smoke, he or she will have to, in principle, head out of the school grounds before doing so.

This kind of sweeping rule is not fair to smokers, especially those who already have the habit before matriculation. Smoking cannot be quit within a short time, and certainly not everyone is capable of doing so. Most smokers are willing to quit if they could (who wouldn't, given the absurd prices of cigarettes), but the fact is that cigarettes are just addictive. Preventing them from smoking may be an encouragement, but it is an aggressive one, and it may backfire, ending up with people breaking the rules which often appears to be the case.

Last year when I stayed in PGP, there are quite some students who smoke during the late hours in the kitchen, resulting in a rather stinging air everytime I enter the kitchen. Sure, I would prefer it there had not been any smoke, but I do not blame them for doing what they did. Asking them to walk all the way out of school to light a cigarette is utterly ridiculous. And smoking in any open area is an invitation to getting caught. And there aren't any "yellow boxes" (for those not in the army, yellow boxes are areas in a camp demarcated for smoking) marked out for them.

If the administration really has the intention of protecting the interests of non-smokers, a better move will be to draw out smoking zones within the school grounds at locations such as balconies or rooftops where the smoke can dissipate. The current policy exposes non-smokers to some smoke if the smokers decide to break the rule, defeating the purpose in the first place. In addition, it is fairer to the smokers as well. Of course, a complete ban is one damn bloody strong incentive (or disincentive, depending on your point of view) to quit. But is it effective?

Singapore Dreaming: Facts & Trivia

2006-09-23T16:10:00.000+08:00

Yesterday, I went with Yao to SINGAPORE DREAMING: Big Dreams, Small Island, a seminar with Woo Yen Yen and Colin Goh, makers of Singapore Dreaming. The seminar was organised by USP, and I came to know about it through an email by my GEK2003 Government and Politics of Singapore tutor, Dr Kenneth Paul Tan. Attended by about sixty people, Yen Yen and Colin spoke on many issues with regards to the making of Singapore Dreaming, its performance at the local box office, and the local filmmaking industry.

It was an enlightening and thought-provoking exchange. It told me a lot of things I never knew... about filmmaking and the local movie audience, the richness of Singapore society and culture, as well as several interesting trivia. Here's some bits of information I found important or shocking, or both.

Singapore Dreaming made more than Perth, Be With Me, and 4:30 all combined, but still cannot break even. So far for all local movies, only Jack Neo can make a profit in the local box office.

The censorship board initially requested that the filmmakers dub all the Hokkien in the movie with Mandarin. To add insult to injury, it also said that the Hokkien can stay for foreign release.

Almost all the events in the movie are taken from real life stories the directors have heard. Perhaps I was a bit too quick in labelling the ending artificial.

Singapore, despite what some people may think, is one of the most expensive places in the world to make a movie. It's even higher than in New York.

For some reason, Singaporeans look down on local films. Little Man, for example, despite its universal poor reviews, earned many times more in its opening weekend than Singapore Dreaming, and was still in the top 10 local box office results last week. I'm not surprised though; after all, Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo topped the local box office when it was released. So much for the Singapore identity.

Please, please, please, if you haven't, go watch the movie. It's almost certain it won't last past this week in the cinemas.

The Bifurcation

2006-09-21T21:34:00.000+08:00

As raised in an earlier post, I was considering bifurcating my blog into two, one for my boring, personal encounters and one for my nonsensical commentaries. I've decided to conduct a trial for that idea. If I like things that way, it'll become permanent. Also, let me know if you find that more desirable, although I doubt your input will affect my decision much, if at all.

This blog, The Feynman Boson, will be the one which I'll use to enunciate my ideas on current affairs. The main reason is due to the greater exposure of this blog to the crazy world. Certainly, I want the blog with the smart ideas to get more attention than the one about my personal failures, so since The Feynman Boson has been sitting around in the blogosphere for quite a while, it should naturally assume this role.

My personal stuff will be posted in The Feynman Fermion. More than ramblings about my personal life, any updates in The Feynman Boson will be reflected in The Feynman Fermion, so for those who like to dwell on my rubbish and laugh at my personal disasters at the same time won't be disappointed.

Boson will be updated about once a week, though that is subjected to my busyness and thoughts. Fermion, on the other hand, should see weekly updates, though most will really be mundane twitters of the mood of the day.

On a side note, as opposed to the name The Feynman Boson, which can have a meaning behind it, the Feynman Fermion, on the other hand, is absurdly meaningless. But then, isn't it apt, for my personal life is quite meaningless too?

Movie Review: Singapore Dreaming

2006-09-20T23:59:00.000+08:00

This is a highly anticipated film for me, given my respect for its directors, Woo Yen Yen and Colin Goh, and the article that formed the basis for the film, Paved with Good Intentions. In addition, given the raving reviews it received and the comments the reviewers left behind, I think I'd be doing a disservice to myself if I give this movie a miss.

After watching the movie, I find myself having mixed opinions about it, though in my mind, of all local feature films, it ranks third behind I Not Stupid and Money Not Enough (this goes to show my opinion of local movies). It does have some amazing acting, mind-blowing when compared to typical MediaCorp artistes, and pretty much acceptable editing and sound effects, especially taking into consideration its budget. Moreover, given this sort of movie, it is the storyline that's the most important.

However, that's where the problem comes in. Firstly, the plot has several parts hanging in the air... some hand-waving parts that doesn't really answers the situation, leaving behind a bumpy flow. Also, the pace was pretty slow at the start, and the cutting between various scenes and characters leave me tad confused. And what's more, the ending seems a bit too artificial. By this, I mean that for most parts of the story, it is entirely plausible to happen in a typical family, but the ending is an unlikely turn of events that would destroy this otherwise "perfect reality".

One other major problem I had with the storyline is the message it is trying to get across. From its marketing and background, I understand that the directors are trying to tell us about what we're seeking in our lives, about the Singapore Dream and the Singapore Plan (the tagline of the movie is "What are you dreaming of?"). However, that is hardly visible in the storyline. Most of the time, I see a realistic depiction of a typical family struggling against certain odds, instead of some reflection or enlightenment of the characters. Sometimes, certain events in the storyline go against the original message. Take for example one scene in which, in an interview, the interviewer said that the degree is important, which kind of defeats the message of the Dream more important than the Plan.

However, when I said that this is a realistic story, it is indeed a realistic story. It is like taking an interesting slice of a Singaporean family's life and putting it onto the screen. Close to the heart and thought-provoking, I can identify very well with it, and even discover elements of the story in my family and myself. It's like a Jack Neo film without the humour and perfect ending, because life is seldom packaged with these two.

This is a high recommendation from me to anyone who's a Singaporean or lived in Singapore long enough, for despite its flaws, it is one story that touches the heart, one story that we may one day find ourselves in.

What are you dreaming of?

P.S.: if you're intending to watch the movie, you'd better do it soon. I'm not sure if it'll still be running in the cinemas next week.

Orbits

2006-09-19T18:01:00.000+08:00

As promised, here are some snapshots of spherical orbits from my SP2172 project. Note that they all are spherical orbits (i.e. constant radius), so if they're not round, it is due to the unequal scales of the orthogonal axes.

The generic "twine" orbit:

Another "twine" orbit. Note the larger "hole" at the poles:

Here's one rare orbit that hit the poles. A strict condition must be imposed to achieve this:

This is an interesting orbit:

This one is exactly the same as the previous but simulated for much longer:

There's also equatorial orbits, but they're hardly impressive, being little more than a line (or actually many lines superimposed upon each other) running along the equator.

The interactive 3D plots will probably not be up, at least not so soon, since none of us know how to create a Java applet yet.

Don't Work Too Hard

2006-09-18T20:34:00.000+08:00

With the mid-term break revving towards us (which, truth be told, is not so much a break than a week-long intense studying for the mid-term tests ambushing behind it) and the exponentially multiplying workload as we move deeper into the semester, it is, perhaps, a good advice that we should, at times, not work too hard.

Okay, show's over. Don't work so hard? Dream on... Get back to mugging!

Buffalo8

2006-09-17T11:40:00.000+08:00

From Wikipedia,

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo is a grammatically valid sentence used as an example of how homophones can be used to create complicated constructs.

What the...

I wonder how many people can figure out what 'Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo' means without looking up the Wikipedia entry or any other references.

The Post of Mystery and Unknown

2006-09-16T17:53:00.000+08:00

I'm waiting for the answer...

SP2172 Project Progress Report

2006-09-15T15:05:00.000+08:00

Finally! My SP2172 project, Spherical Orbits of Massive Particles Around a Kerr Black Hole, has shifted into a new phase. For the past few weeks, what we've been doing was reading up and learning what we could lay our hands on regarding Kerr black holes (black holes that rotate). But over the past few days, after putting the equations in a form that we want and verifying its results with other papers, we've finally moved on to generating data of our own.

General relativity, which replaces Newton's theory of gravity, predicts several peculiar features, one of which is a black hole. A black hole is essentially a lot of mass squeezed into an infinitesimal point, such that, according to general relativity, the gravitational potential is infinity at that point. More than predicting this strange feature, it has also given rise to counter-intuitive orbits, such as a particle that revolves around a Kerr black hole and yet has zero angular momentum.

Armed with the equations, we modified a C programme our staff mentor, Prof Edward Teo, provided us with. He used it to simulate spherical (i.e. constant radius) orbits of non-massive particles (i.e. photons), which had quite simpler equations (the equations for massive particles can span three lines across the page!).

The programme gives a chain of coordinates, with which we will use MatLab to plot into a 3D graph. Currently, most of the orbits fall into the expected types, which has the general shape of a ball of twine. I shall post snapshots of some of the orbits here once I get my hands onto them, or if possible, upload interactive Java applets of the 3D orbits (if we figure out how to do that).

Naturally, it is not these "twine" orbits that interests us. We'd be looking out for orbits that are not expected, and from there understand more about orbits around a Kerr Black Hole.

Best of all, this week is my most productive week of this semester so far. Those nights of working down to 3 a.m. has paid off.

Escape from Life

2006-09-13T00:39:00.000+08:00

Ahahaha!

But if there's really such an option in life, I'd settle for Ctrl-C.

Life

2006-09-10T19:23:00.000+08:00

I dunno whether to love or hate this week. It was a monstrous emotional roller-coaster ride for me... the hurricane in which I was standing right in its eye seem to have shifted and scooped me off my feet.

Sometimes, I really wish life weren't so complex and mired with complications I cannot see. Sometimes, I really wish life were logical, rational, and could be broken down into orderly relations like mathematics. Sometimes, I really wish I had no trouble understanding other people's feelings. Sometimes, I really wish things would go my way, ideally, smoothly, trouble-free.

Sigh...

Human beings are really too perplexing for me to comprehend. Sometimes, it's not the crass jokes or clever puns or witty satire that humours me; it's the innocence of animals when projected onto a human perspective that makes me laugh.

Please, enjoy these as I have.

A Lost Bet: The IMF/World Bank Meeting

2006-09-09T00:08:00.000+08:00

The IMF/World Bank has issued a strong statement, requesting Singapore to allow protests during the IMF/WB meeting. More than that, it has also implied in that press release that by banning protests, Singapore has broken the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between both parties. This comes after the police released a statement saying that they will shoot to kill anyone who threatens someone else.

Originally, the IMF/World Bank meeting is highly beneficial to Singapore as it serves to highlight Singapore's potential in hosting such international conferences and events. More than the immediate revenue from the event itself, if the meeting goes on smoothly, Singapore will gain by attracting the attention of other global organisations. Thus, this meeting has became a super-advertisement for Singapore.

However, it is appearing to morph into a liability. Assuming that Singapore maintains its no-protests stand, the accusation that Singapore is breaching the MOU may have negative repercussions. Already suffering somewhat a bad name internationally for banning protests, this additional fact will smudge Singapore's reputation to host such an event. Why should another international conference be held here when Singapore will not keep its end of the bargain?

If the government finally relents and allows protests, this will possibly result in a worse consequence, which has manifested in online discussions before the ban was announced: why are foreigners allowed to protest when locals are not? Why is it that foreigners have a voice while Singaporeans have their mouths zipped shut? How then can the government justify that Singaporeans are not allowed to protest on the basis of possible violence?

Either way, it seems that the government gotten itself entangled in a Catch-22 situation, a lost bet.

The Post of Mystery and Unknown

2006-09-08T20:23:00.000+08:00

Applied the litmus test. It turned out negative for now, but I'm definitely not giving up hope.

"Political" Crisis in CHS?

2006-09-05T20:01:00.000+08:00

I seem to be standing in the eye of a hurricane the past few days.

Surreal and stunning incidents seem to be unravelling around me. First there was the rejection for a hostel room, though that was kinda expected. Then there was the abrupt news of Steve Irwin's death just yesterday, but that is somewhat distant from my personal life. And then today, while I was browsing The Intelligent Singaporean, it appears that my alma mater, Catholic High School, is undergoing some sort of administrative/leadership crisis. (This incident was also Tomorrow-ed.)

This came as quite a surprise to me, since two months back when I visited the school, there didn't seem to be much tension going on at the surface. Even when I chatted with some of the teachers, there didn't seem to be any gripe about the principle. Of course, they, as teachers, are forbidden to speak bad about their superiors, but there didn't seem to be any underlying disdain for the man in their words.

Quite frankly, many of the allegations in the petition are rather startling, and they certainly demand some investigations (such as the public humiliation of students and forced donations). Others, though not so urgent, still needs to be looked into, for they are, to a certain extent, inappropriate actions and demands (e.g. the call for perfect punctuality). However, this is only one side of the story; I'd need at least the principal's side before I can make a fair judgement. Even so, my judgement assumes that both words are of the truth; an inquiry should be conducted to verify or refute these statements.

To me, one of the most shocking facts in the whole situation was the transfer of the nine teachers. More than half of them were around when I was in the school. In particular, Mrs Alice Long was my teacher for maths in secondary 4. And here I give you my word that Mrs Long is one of the best teachers in the school. For one, she is extremely capable in teaching (I've got A for both my maths), and two, she cares about the welfare of her students and goes beyond what is necessary to help them. What's more, she has been around in the school for more than a decade, so if there's any question about her capability, she would not have stayed till now. In fact, the first four names on the list are long-time teachers in Catholic High School.

I hope that the school can sort these things out, preferably out of public eyes, and more importantly without any casualties to office politicking. Such incidents are not encouraging to students who are taking their O levels this year, and certainly to the teachers whose only dream is to see their students soar above the clouds.

Oh my... what a week... what a week.

A Farewell to a Great Man

2006-09-05T00:21:00.000+08:00

Usually, Steve Irwin's actions are often seen to be crazy by many others, particularly his daring brushes with danger. Nonetheless, he was certainly an entertaining character, and his activism is very much worth praising.

Yet sometimes, life is often a strange swirl of irony. Certainly, his death is absolutely sudden and unexpected, what more by a creature that one would've never come to think of.

And the most surreal thing is, while he is seldom a subject of my conversation, it just so happened that I talked about him with a friend today. In fact, my friend wanted to go to Australia to see his performance...

The Crocodile Hunter will be missed, but his legacy and legend will live on.

My New Hostel Room

2006-09-03T20:16:00.000+08:00

After what seems like an unbearable long wait, the Office of Student Affairs (OSA) Residential Services has finally sent me an email on Friday with regards to my application to the waiting list for hostel.

The waiting list is a list for students who failed to obtain a hostel room in the first round of application, which is allocated on the basis of CCA points. As demand for hostel rooms is fantastically high, the CCA points required naturally hit the heavens, and most, like me with fewer CCA points, get thrashed by the rest.

There is, however, a second chance: the waiting list. It is a list of those who still want a hostel room, and priority is given on a first-come-first-serve (which they put innocently as "availability") basis. The rooms for this waiting list are mainly from those who got it in the first round but rejected the allocation. The application for waiting list typically opens in the first week of the term, and that's probably the last chance for one to get a hostel room for the semester.

This year the application opened 21st August (Monday) at midnight. Knowing how hot the fight was, I set my alarm clock at 2345 - 15 minutes before the application opens - the rational being giving myself sufficient time to turn on the computer and log on to the site.

The good news is that I did wake up and turned on my computer at 2345. However, because I had a camp the night before, and was in a friend's house for the subsequent day, reaching home only by about 2100 on Sunday night, I effectively had only one hour of sleep for the past thirty-six hours. And the poor estimation meant that by 2350 I was waiting in front of the application webpage and staring like a zombie at the screen.

That was when I decided to lie down for a while and then it was 0530, when my handphone's alarm clock woke me up for school. I made a mad scramble to submit the application, half my brain trying to figure out what to fill into the online form while the other half trying to shake off the feeling that it has just came out of cryogenic storage.

It is thus not really unexpected when the email from OSA informing me that there were no more vacancies. And as if to soften the blow, the email also mentioned that 700 other people got also rejected. That number is, in my opinion, quite substantial, which leads me to wonder why they just don't simply build the residences thirty storeys high, but that's not what I'm discussing now.

OSA suggested off-campus accommodations, basically referring to renting flats from nearby HDB estates, but I'm not going for that, simply because I already have a backup. In fact, I've already been exercising that option since school started.

For the past few weeks, I've been sleeping in SPS room. Basically, SPS room is a standard seminar room converted to an activity room for SPS students, with its own computer cluster (mainly Linux systems), study tables (which lines the wall), discussion areas (a few chairs in a circle) and a lecture area, as well as a mini library.

Since I have one place for myself on the study table where I put all my stuff (books, teabags, clothes etc.), it's not really a ridiculous idea to sleep there at all. Of course, I do not stayover everyday, but only on days when I have 0800 lectures on the next (which, sadly, is four out of five). In addition, there are people who sleep there every single night (most are foreign students, SPS room being their hostel), so I'm certainly not the one and only. What's more, it's free, and in a convenient location (water cooler nearby, just above the canteen and central to most of my lesson locations). If that's not enough, the atmosphere in SPS room essentially yells "STUDY! STUDY! STUDY!", which is some rather good motivation for a student.

The only drawback is the lack of privacy, as well as slight inconveniences (I mean, I cannot, for example, start hanging my clothes in the room, or walk around half-naked). Nonetheless, I do not see any reason why I should not sleep there. Some can slouch on chairs and switch off, but I need and have a sleeping bag, which of course essentially makes it as good as a bed when on the carpeted floor.

So if you find my wandering sleepily late at night or early in the morning in the S16 block, do not be alarmed. And if you need to find me, don't head for PGP; you know where my hostel room is.

On a side note, I believe the demand for hostel accommodations will continue to skyrocket, and the CCA points required to secure one will get obscenely high. Blame it on the ever-increasing intake of students, if you wish.

On a side side note, this is my 200th post. Yay!

Amazing Performance

2006-09-02T10:13:00.000+08:00

Here's another utterly mind-blowing performance by The Umbilical Brothers, a performance group in Australia. This is as wonderful as the performance by Tripod at Comedy Festival.

Enjoy!

Three Lessons in Life

2006-08-30T19:50:00.000+08:00

Here are a few advice on thing you should not do, with substantiations from Google Video.

You should never add insult to injury. You should even more never add injury to injury:

Never mess around with old people:

Don't try to act smart:

Photochromic Spectacles

2006-08-29T01:45:00.000+08:00

A few weeks ago, I noticed that even with my spectacles on, my right eye vision could not close in on distant objects. A visit to the optician has, fortunately, indicated that my right eye has decide to make a 25% leap from 200 degrees to 250 degrees instead of my worst fear that my eyeball is mutating into a button mushroom.

As I was browsing through the different spectacle frames, the friendly optician suggested to me on considering photochromic lenses, also known as Transition lenses due to the intense advertisement by the company of the same name. It costs about two times the price of a pair of normal lenses, which is the primary reason for the prolonged battle between the stingy and the inquisitive parts of me. Eventually, the latter won, so I ordered a pair.

Quite frankly, the tint of the lenses is pretty unnoticeable by the wearer. In fact, it is quite hard to visually discern if it is the lenses or the sky that has darkened, unless I take my spectacles off and look at the lenses, or compare the spectacles view with the non-spectacles view.

In addition, the degree to which the lens darken is pretty minimal. This is a consequence, I believe, of Singapore's hot weather, since, in short, photochromism is less effective in warmer surroundings due to the fact that the "deactivation" of the tint is a process fuelled by heat (ultraviolet, on the other hand, activates the tint).

But looking at it from another angle, my spectacles is my new portable UV detector. If my vision turns blacker while indoors (such as in a lab), I should perhaps take caution. Maybe one day I should even use it to test out Wien's displacement law on blackbody radiation.

Yay! I can finally see my favourite colour!

How Many Planets Are There in the Solar System?

2006-08-27T10:13:00.000+08:00

In increasing distance from the Sun: Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune. In total, eight.

Yep, if you're not aware of recent astronomy news, it appears that Pluto, our eccentric fringe member in the Solar System, has been voted out of the Planetary Club, as a result of a re-definition of the term "planet".

Of course, the status of Pluto as a planet has been in question for a long time, mainly due to its small size, highly eccentric orbit and tilted plane of orbit. The reason why it was labelled as a planet is a long story, which can be simply summarised into two points. One, theoretical calculations based on Neptune's orbit inferred a presence of massive objects beyond, which was assumed to be a planet (though it turned out later to be more than a "planet"). Two, telescopes weren't that accurate in the 1930s when Pluto was discovered, so its size and orbit could not be determined accurately.

So, how will that change things? It won't. Pluto, as a planet or a dwarf planet (its new label), will continue to orbit eccentrically in an inclined plane no matter what we call it. Celestial objects couldn't be bothered with those mundane labellings that morons on the third planet from the Sun are so fascinated with.

Any Opportunist Mee Siam Seller Out There?

2006-08-26T19:03:00.000+08:00

Just had this sudden thought: if some mee siam seller has some opportunist blood running in his veins, he'd be quick to introduce the new version of mee siam - Mee Siam with Hum.

It is not only a fresh idea; it will also draw quite an amount of curiosity due to PM's rally blunder as well as the buzz in the blogosphere. I predict that the stall will experience a sharp spike in business for the days to come. Why, one can even ask for "mee siam mai hum", making it a novel order in the hawker centre.

There is already some free publicity from mr brown's recent podcast. And I believe such a dish, if introduced, will spread like wildfire by bloggers.

Of course, it has to be some kind of promotional special, lasting maybe a fortnight or so. I doubt anyone likes hum in their mee siam, or else it would've been in there long ago. It's more like those kind of bubble tea craze, only that it has a shorter duration.

So, anyone here sells mee siam?

The Post of Mystery and Unknown

2006-08-26T10:12:00.000+08:00

Perhaps I have been a bit impatient... is it too early to take the next step, to make what is probably an unambiguous confirmation?

Mee Siam Mai Hum

2006-08-24T22:35:00.000+08:00

If you, like me, has been busy of late or does not have a habit of checking the mr brown show website, it is high time you listen to their recent podcast entitled with the innocent title of a harmless podcast.

Between this and the Bak Chor Mee podcast, I can't decide which is better.

Somehow I feel this will be better if it was dubbed as a full song... *hint* *hint*!

The Itinerant

2006-08-24T16:19:00.000+08:00

(This entry is quite overdue... I blame it on my over-packed schedule.)

The Itinerant is a book written by one of my army friends. It is a gentle blend of fantasy, mystery, as well as science fiction (which renders it immune to whatever scientific errors I might have issues with). Its style, for good or bad, deviates from much of the sci-fi books in the market, though, admittedly, I have not read enough of them to be certain how much this book differs.

However, what is certain is that grammatical or spelling errors are bound to surface to the reader. This is a result of the author self-publishing the book in an online publishing firm, Lulu. While this does away with the additional costs of professional editing and removes possible clouding as the book makes its way from the author to the readers, the price he has to pay is the existence of some typographical errors, as well as the loss of perhaps better ways of phrasing certain words or sentences.

In any case, it should not bother me or any other casual readers too much, since it is the storyline in the story that is important. This is how the synopsis goes:

Byrne has been wandering the globe since the day he can remember. Driven by an inexplicable restlessness that prevents him from settling down in one place for any significant period of time, he wanders aimlessly from town to town without knowing why. It seems like this is going to be the norm for the rest of his life until one day things take a turn for the surreal. His most recent landlord winds up dead, subject to a mysterious ailment known as the Dry Death. He meets an enigmatic man who offers him a job – a job that seems too good to be true. His body starts exhibiting some rather unusual changes. He comes across a strange and elusive lady who seems to be avoiding not just him but his employers as well. As the strangeness starts escalating day by day, Byrne will discover that there are more links to all these events than he initially thought, and in his quest for the truth, he will find not only his fair share of secrets and hidden agendas but the very reason for his itinerancy...

It is a brave attempt for the author to break out of the standard mold of sci-fi books. In my opinion, not only is it brave, but the story is also fairly good for a first attempt. In general, the flow of the story runs pretty smoothly just like all conventionally-published books, though at certain points the flow turns a bit bumpy and dry. Nonetheless, as with most mystery books, once the reader reaches the I-should-stop-at-the-next-page-*flip*-or-maybe-the-next... point, the following pages will become a quicksand.

Another plus point about this story is that it is not overbearing on any particular genre. Though I do consider it somewhat a sci-fi, it does not have spaceships, hyperspace travel, ion cannons and stuff like these as its skeleton. Its elements of mystery may be stronger, but the focus is not on solving riddles and cracking codes. These different genres are mixed together to complement each other.

However, one area which I thought improvements can be made in is its action scenes. While it may be fine to some, my opinion is that these parts could been written in a quicker and more powerful style. Of course, I could be biased since I always favoured gongfu-styled fighting, partly a result of Louis Cha's wuxia novels and partly my preferred way of describing an action scene.

I do recommend this book for the above reasons as well as another: it is cheap: S$1. This book can be purchased online, either by digital form (PDF format) or printed version (which is much more expensive even before including shipping costs). Details can be found here.

Funny Commercials

2006-08-22T00:25:00.000+08:00

Activities one after another has been driving me breathless these few days... Fortunately, after today, there should be more time for me to take a rest. I apologise for the lack of articles; I've got a number of thoughts in my mind, but had not the time to pen them down.

Meanwhile, do enjoy these hilarious commercials.

Science and Religion

2006-08-18T02:02:00.000+08:00

"This freedom to doubt is an important matter in the sciences and, I believe, in other fields."
- Richard Feynman

Science is erected upon the idea of fallibility. Uncertainty and doubt is always a key in science: a key to further developments, a key to greater knowledge and a key to a more precise theory. Although this was not apparent in the long history of science that was mired with philosophy and bogged down by authority, it became clear in the 20th century where old, firm, well established theories get overthrown by new, bizarre, radical ones, insofar as it becoming one of the tenets of the scientific method. In fact, science is, in a way, about overthrowing theories.

For example, Newton's laws formed the pillars of physics, but if there had been no doubt about it being the "truth", then the laws of relativity and electromagnetism would not have emerged, and we would have little of the knowledge and technological advances we enjoy today. Similarly, the geocentric model of the Universe would not have been replaced by the heliocentric model if Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler had not challenged the authorities.

On the other hand, religion is founded on faith. There lies this basis which you have to believe, no matter how you question it. To begin with, there is always the presence of a god that one has to accept without physical proof. Usually, if not always, this basis is held as a Universal truth, defended vigourously and seldom challenged from within, falling apart only when it is thoroughly inconsistent with other better established field of knowledge (a title only which science is worthy of claim).

This is the crucial difference between science and religion. Science allows for corrections, allows itself to be wrong, to be challenge, to fall so as to rise up stronger. However, it is worth mentioning that it is, perhaps, due to this uncertainty and shaky footing that some prefers a religious (or alternative) explanation over a scientific one.

And on that note, I shall now proceed on to some hypothetical situations.

Suppose one day a time machine is built. I should say that a time machine is not theoretically impossible, but at the current stage practically unachieveable because of technological limits. (For more information, read How to Build a Time Machine by Paul Davis. It is an excellent book targetted at the general audience.) Now observations of history are conducted with this time machine, such that they do not alter the past (so that we can avoid that irritating grandfather paradox and the likes of it).

Now, in this thought situation, some scientists, carrying detectors and video cameras and whatever equipment they have at their disposal, zoom back thousands of years into the past. When these scientists emerged from the time machine, they found themselves in totally nothing. Nothing. Then, as they are wondering if something had gone wrong with their apparatus, suddenly the sky began to glow. A blinding white light descended from above, so much so that they had to close their eyes.

A while later, the light faded, and the scientists open their eyes. To their shock, everything appeared: land, water, trees, animals, air, sun, stars, sky... and all appear as if they had been around for a long time. All these, recorded with the equipment, were brought back for analysis. Repeated tests were done, difference scientists went, more detectors were brought along, and the same thing happened at that very same time. And before that time, it was the same Nothing that surrounds them.

The scientists have no idea on how to explain this phenomenon. So they called for a convention in which the top brains and oddballs got together and debated at great lengths. Finally, they stepped out to the public and concluded that, for the lack of an alternative explanation, the general consensus is: a phenomenon similar to divine intervention has occurred. It appears that the Universe was created by a "higher" entity.

This is what I believe will happen in such an event due to the nature of science. Even though it may be hard to swallow, science will probably accept the reasoning of its age-old opponent.

Let's suppose another situation. Let's say that these scientists go back in time to around Jesus's supposed existence era. They went around searching in secret, listening to conversations of people. To their shock, they found that Jesus never existed, and that events such as the Crucifixion never occurred. They, just like in the hypothetical situation above, ran repeated tests, with more elaborate equipment as well as different people (with religious figures tagging along this time). But no matter how they probe, how they observe, how they searched, how they checked their equipment, it seems to appear that Jesus never existed.

(I must say that such a situation is highly unlikely, given the numerous independent accounts describing the same person and event, albeit each differing slightly. However, no matter how improbably an event is, it is not impossible.)

Now, being a non-believer of religion, such an event probably won't affect me at all. However, for those Christians who follow the Bible piously, will they be willing to accept the fact? That there is a major flaw in the book in which they place their basis on? In fact, broadening and generalising the argument, if one day science is able to produce evidence that contradicts any religion or major events in that religion, what will its followers do?

I do welcome one who has opinions to comment, since it is difficult for me to comprehend the thoughts of a religious person in such a situation. There is of course no right or wrong answer, and I must admit the situation I've set up is suffocating, but nonetheless I sincerely hope for opinions if you can afford it.

TalkingCock Does It Again

2006-08-15T19:06:00.000+08:00

I know this is a bit late, but for those who don't read Talkingcock.com, they've apparently pulled off another good joke. Rare has it been that Talkingcock.com came up with brilliant stuff, and this is one smart one. It is not the satire that blows me off, but rather, it is the way the joke pops out into your face that's funny.

Malaysian Police Stumped by Pepper Attack on Dr. M

Enjoy!

A Sleeping Second Day

2006-08-15T12:44:00.000+08:00

This morning's lecture, set in the small cosy seminar room of S9A-02-01, was attended by thirteen students, not too far from the fourteen in the class roster. Techniques in Advanced Calculus is one module that maths majors cannot take, which leaves it open to other majors like me from physics and others from computing.

A general glance told me that this module is more like a build up from the calculus part of MA1505, but, perhaps due to the long day yesterday and the early morning hours together with the drone of the lecturer, I couldn't really quite focus on what he had to L'Hopital's Rule and Infinite Series. Nonetheless, I'm pretty certain I've studied it at one point of my life.

Well, the morning of the second day into the term, I've already had all the first lectures for my modules. Kinda weird...

First Day, Mad Rush

2006-08-14T22:43:00.000+08:00

Hey, guess what? For some amazingly unknown reason, the lecture for three of the four level 2000 physics core modules (the fourth has no lecture) are lined up back to back, spanning from 0800 in the morning to 1400 in the afternoon, every Monday and Thursday. Since I'm taking them all this semester (which is not necessary, though I find it desirable if not for the mad schedule), this means that I have a stupendous stretch of lectures with negligible break in between.

On top of that, I had a political science module which just sits in neatly behind this chain of lectures on Monday, which essentially means a lecture marathon of eight hours straight. And it seems that my physics professors do not obey the general rule of ending lectures half an hour before the official ending time (the rational being that students can travel to their next lesson), it means my lunch essentially has to be bought and consumed in five minutes.

However, other than the rushed timing and the accursed sardine buses, I do find it quite manageable... at least for now. The first lecture, Electricity and Magnetism I by Dagomir, was rather mundane, but that's partly because he's going through what I've already known. Nonetheless, he has the tendency to add some jokes unexpectedly into his lectures, which sort of liven up the horribly chilling LT (made worse by the morning rain). At least I learnt that Spinelli is the Italian word for marijuana.

The second lecture is more of the standard NUS lecture that I've come to know of. It was Mathematical Methods in Physics I by Lim Hock Siah. It appears to be more on the difficult side, but given its importance, this means that the extra effort I may have to put in is worth it.

Following that comes Quantum Mechanics I by Oh Choo Hiap, who was also the Head of Department until he stepped down two months ago. One of the queer descriptions I've heard about him is that he is cute. And my, sure that word couldn't be more apt! How comical it was of him to stride into the LT and ask if school has started (and in case you're thinking that he's cracking a joke, I'm certainly getting the impression that he was serious). And since he's prepared almost nothing yet, he went on to give a brief description of the history of physics, quoting from memory the important dates like the year Newton's Principia was published. And of course, he has a couple of jokes up his sleeves that he weaves into his lecture to spice things up.

After a mad rush to Arts, I arrived at the Government and Politics in Singapore lecture slightly late, but missed nothing important. And I must say I really love this module, since it raises thought-provoking questions that I've never even pondered upon in my life. Never mind that the reading material is thick as Young & Freedman's University Physics, I sincerely believe the time I spent is damn worth it!

Well, that's a lot for the first day of school. There's still another mathematics module tomorrow, but I do not expect much to report on it.

The End Has Come

2006-08-13T13:57:00.000+08:00

So here it is: the inevitable; the end of SOW (Science Orientation Week), the start of school. I will really miss SOW... miss all the fun, the freshies, the games, the madness, the passion, the cheering... SOW truly rocks!... I've never felt so young in such a long time.

I hope to join SOW07 once again, though I shall not place too much hope in that for three reasons. First, if my plan of going on exchange is on track, then I may not be around during this time next year. Second, given the success of SOW06, most of the seniors in SOW07 will probably be this year's freshies, just as it is for this year's seniors. Thirdly, even if there are places for year 3 seniors in SOW07, I doubt there will be many and they'll be better in the hands of other super-enthu seniors of the past few days.

Oh well... I really hope to join...

Anyway, for any freshie reading this, a super-big thanks to all of you!... again. You really made SOW06 a golden experience for me.

Thanks to the freshies!

Thanks to the seniors!

Thanks to Nightmare OG!

Thanks to Graveyard house!

Thanks to Yuhan!

And thanks to Wee Tong who started it all!

Well, it's time to put down the copious enthusiasm and pick up the books once again, as well as resume blogging about more serious things.

May the FOS be with you.

Water Animation

2006-08-12T03:54:00.000+08:00

I apologise for the lack of updates in the recent days; Science Orientation Week has been keeping me very busy...

Anyway, no huge updates this time... just a little video that I've found interesting.

Enjoy!

The Post of Mystery and Unknown

2006-08-09T22:59:00.000+08:00

Uncertainty has given way; there is little doubt now. The question is, when do I make the next move?

SOW - Cruising at 5,000 Feet Above Sea Level

2006-08-06T11:38:00.000+08:00

Wow! Finally, the long-awaited SOW (Science Orientation Week) has started. I have been in school since Wednesday to make some final preparations before the arrival of the freshies the next day, and it has been an absolute craziness until Saturday afternoon. I've wanted to pen my thoughts yesterday, but the lack of sleep is completely devastating to my ability to write.

The theme of SOW this year is Scinimation, and all the OG names are titles of cartoon or animation movies, grouped into four different houses. My OG is from the Graveyard house, and we've got the longest OG name: Nightmare Before Christmas.

Nightmare Before Christmas is quite a mouthful, so we're in short known as Nightmare. The freshies were a bit quiet on the first day, which really worried me deeply, for that'll indicate a failure on us senior's part to rouse them up. Fortunately, as if an overnight sleep settles some hidden disease, everyone was suddenly wild and delirious on the second day, and this blazing passion burnt all the way through till Saturday. For some reason I feel that this passion will flare with increasing magnitude to the fire of a sun in the days to come.

This is a photo of us and our buddy OG, Corpse Bride:

And the Graveyard house...

... on a walkabout:

Here's our charismatic house IC, Wenguang:

Well that's all for now. There'll be more thoughts, photos and perhaps even videos later (definitely there'll be - three days and the photos and videos have piled up to 1.4 GB).

One last thing before I sign off: looking at the contact list of my OG, it made me feel quite old... Dang, I'm the oldest around, even amongst the seniors (because the rest are Malaysians)...

One day pigs will fly!

What's in a Name

2006-08-02T08:25:00.000+08:00

I've just come to realise that the term "Feynman boson" is not exactly nonsensical as it seems. But before I delve into that, I shall briefly recount how I came to name this blog as such.

A couple of months back, when I decided, somewhat on the whim, to establish a blog, I was momentarily held back when I was required to decide on the name of the blog. Since I could not come up with anything sensible at that moment, my mind searched for absurdly creative names.

(You can skip the next paragraph if you wish.)

At that time, my statistical physics course has steered into spin-statistics theorem, touching on what a boson is. At the same time, our SPS project has ventured into scalar fields, more specifically, the Higgs boson. Now, the Higgs boson is a particle predicted in theory (due to symmetry), by Peter Higgs, but is yet to be observed experimentally. It is a very important particle in that it was supposedly responsible for giving mass to other particles.

The Higgs boson is obviously named after Peter Higgs. So I thought, Higgs has his boson. Since Richard Feynman is my favourite scientist, why not name a boson after him? And hence the name of this blog...

Recently, while looking up certain facts about Feynman on Wikipedia, I came across this paragraph:

After the success of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman turned to quantum gravity. By analogy with the photon, which has spin 1, he investigated the consequences of a free massless spin 2 field, and was able to derive the Einstein field equation of general relativity, but little more.

Now, a boson is a particle which has integer spin, i.e. spin-0, spin-1, spin-2 and so on. Gravity, in quantum field theory, is described by a spin-2 particle known as the graviton (the equivalent of photon in electromagnetic interactions). In particle physics, a force is actually an exchange of these particles, so when there is electromagnetic or gravitational force between two bodies, these two bodies exchange photons or gravitons respectively.

I'm not sure if Feynman is the first person to derive Einstein field equations from quantum field theory. Now, assuming it is, this particle, this graviton, can then also be named after Feynman. And since gravitons are spin-2 particles, this meant that they are bosons. So Feynman bosons are actually gravitons.

Gravitons have never been observed experimentally. The currently accepted theory for gravity is Einstein's general theory of relativity. In it, gravity is actually not a force, but a result of the geometry of spacetime. There is no particle involved. On the other hand, in quantum field theory where gravitons are hypothesized to exist, there is currently no model that can meaningfully describe the gravitational force. It is the only particle in quantum field theory responsible for interactions not to be observed, which may be a hint that the quantum field theory may not be the ultimate theory that can unify all four fundamental forces.

The attempt at finding a model of quantum field theory that can describe gravity (and hence incorporate gravitons) is collectively known as quantum gravity, and so far the success has been limited. Right now, the superstring theory holds greater hope in this aspect.

Perhaps this is what "Feynman boson" means... barking up the wrong tree.

Bloopers for a Break

2006-07-31T09:06:00.000+08:00

Here's a couple of bloopers. They may be accidental or intentional, but they're quite funny. Enjoy!

Canned Protests

2006-07-28T22:27:00.000+08:00

I know I'm breaking my resolution of cutting down on my blogging frequency, but I really cannot ignore this. It turns out that while protests are allowed during the IMF meetings, they're only allowed indoors. And more than indoors, they're restricted to only the lobby of Suntec Convention Centre.

While I do understand that Singapore is perhaps not ready for open demonstrations (although peaceful demonstrations will be an ideal goal for an open Singapore in the far future), capping these IMF protests indoors seems so... artificial. On top of that, I wonder if lobby is sufficient to hold the numerous groups of demonstrators. The article also mentioned "strict rules" but failed to elaborate on that, which leads me to question if the "protests" intended can be considered protests at all.

It resonates with the PAP's habit of keeping things in tidy little boxes with tidy little labels. No mess, no dirtyness, no trouble. Just like Speaker's Corner in Hong Lim Park: put a police post right beside it.

I do believe, however, that the authorities are capable of enforcing this law. There may very likely be outdoor protests (either due to defiance or insufficient space), but they will be quelled with amazing efficiency. But I wonder how badly the beating will be on Singapore's reputation.

Public Transport Fare Hike: To Infinity and Beyond!

2006-07-28T10:05:00.000+08:00

It seems that public transport fares are going to rise... again. Well, I really question if that is necessary at all, given the fat profits these transport companies get (a suggestion to make it fatter: cut those CEO's and director's pay).

Nonetheless, it can be said that the services they provide are of decent standard. I mean, at least we don't see this yet:

Movie Review: Lady in the Water

2006-07-27T21:32:00.000+08:00

M. Night Shyamalan's films have never failed to impress me. Even those which I find least pleasing, i.e. Unbreakable and Signs, are pretty decent as compared with other Hollywood junk. Lady in the Water is no exception, despite a huge shift in the setting of the story.

The plot moves slowly at the initial stage, but accelerates at a comfortable rate to some rather tense moments at the end. The storyline is more confusing, as there are more characters and more "roles" to fulfill (what I mean by "roles" will become clear once you've watched the movie). Shyamalan's characteristic twists are quite plentiful, but there is no single one that really smacks hard in the viewer's face.

Some of the twists may seem meaningless at first glance, only to reveal its concealed hint when one carefully reviews the movie after watching. This means that there is very much post-analysis that can be done, thus increasing the "value" of this movie. However, to those whose brains are tuned more for Hollywood-styled shallow plots, these turns in the storyline will be irritating, which probably explains the largely negative reviews I've heard so far. These critics aren't completely off either: a few of the twists could've been better worked on, since these few give a feeling that it is carelessly written or thrown in last minute (either that, or I've yet to figure out the significance of the twist).

The music's rather brilliant, though it lacks a certain lustre when compared to The Village's striking violin pieces. As for, for a lack of a better word, creature design, I thought more effort could've been put in. The creatures are similar to those in The Village, which I thought could be improved on. Nonetheless, it is the liberty of the director to make the creatures appear how they should.

One problem some people may have with the story is that it seems so fake or so meaningless for certain "necessary" things, like the task of organising a farewell ceremony. The only answer I have to that is that this is just a bedtime story; certain things are just the way they are.

Now, it has been long since I've watched such a great movie... In fact, I don't remember watching another one this year that can comfortably satisfy me. So, Lady in the Water is a high recommendation from me. And a 100% more so if you like twists.

The Dead Past

2006-07-27T07:21:00.000+08:00

I've just read a short story entitled The Dead Past, by Issac Asimov. According to Wikipedia, it was first published in 1956, but I found it in a relatively recent publication called The Complete Stories Volume One.

(WARNING: spoiler ahead until the end of the article!)

Set in the mid-twenty-first century, where scientific research requires so much funding that all scientific research is directed and funded by the government, and publication of one's research is allowed only if one has the approval of the government, there exists a professor of ancient history who goes by the name of Potterly. His research interest is in Carthage.

For a long time he has been applying to the government for the use of the chronoscope. A chronoscope is an apparatus that allows the user to view and listen to events of the past. However, the only chronoscope in the world is held by the government, and for an unknown reason, it keeps rejecting Potterly's applications. In fact, no one can find any information on chronoscopy anywhere - no books, no courses offered, no publications on it. No one researches into it because the government won't grant anyone the approval.

Potterly, suspecting that the government is suppressing the research on chronoscopy, obtained the help of a physics researcher, Foster. With the help of the latter's resourceful uncle, they managed to do some underground research on chronoscopy and managed to build a chronoscope which is smaller and cheaper than the government's (because the government's was based on a theory that was rather ancient; Foster combined his expertise with what he illegally read about chronoscopy to come up with a theoretical shortcut), so small and cheap that anyone can assemble a chronoscope in his room. However, they discovered that there is a limit to how far one can view into the past before the "noise" will drown the signal, thus meaning that all "verified ancient historical events" the government publishes using the chronoscope is clearly a fabrication.

Potterly abandoned his hopes of using the chronoscope to advance his opinions on Carthage but Foster, in the spirit of scientific advancement, attempts to publish his discovery, even if it means the end of his career. Potterly, feeling responsible for dragging Foster into this mess, attempts to stop him and eventually contacted the government before the situation spirals out of control.

Just before Foster could publish his research, he was stopped by an agent of the government. More than admitting that the government fabricates information about the chronoscope, the agent goes on to explain why the government suppresses chronoscopy research:

'Now you three [Potterly, Foster and his uncle] know a century or a little more is the limit, so what does the past mean to you? Your youth. Your first girl. Your dead mother. Twenty years ago. Thirty years ago. Fifty years ago. The deader the better... But when does the past really begin?

...

'Well, when did it begin? A year ago? Five minutes ago? One second ago? Isn't it obvious that the past begins an instant ago? The dead past is just another name for the living present. What if you focus the chronoscope in the past of one-hundredth of a second ago? Aren't you watching the present?'

However, with a dystopian twist, it turns out the government was just a little too late. Foster's uncle's resourcefulness was the guillotine of privacy, for he managed to get Foster's research out to a few scientists before he was informed of the dire consequences. Containment of the publication is no longer possible. The story ends there, but it became obvious that privacy, from then on, is a thing of the past. The dead past.

This forces me to think about the moral responsibility of scientists. I refer not only to applied sciences and engineering (since engineering in a way is applied science but with different focus) where a moral responsibility is obviously essential, but also to theoretical sciences.

My philosophy on the moral responsibility of theoretical sciences is drawn from Richard Feynman's idea that knowledge is power. How that power is used is another matter, but knowledge is power, and it is the responsibility of theoretical scientists to reveal these knowledge so that science, the human race and knowledge itself can progress. One quote he used rings very loudly whenever I ponder over these matters:

"To every man is given the key to the gates of heaven, the same key opens the gates of hell."

Knowledge is this key; theoretical sciences bring about this knowledge. However, this key has no instructions on how to use it. Uranium doesn't come with an atomic code saying that it should not be made into a bomb. There is no line in the DNA that says cloning should not be done on humans. Moral responsibility is not engraved on this key; it has to come from the people who uses the key - the applied scientists and engineers.

So in principle, a theoretical scientist has the responsibility of revealing the truth while an applied scientist has to exercise appropriate moral judgement when conducting his research.

But as seen in this short story, Foster held some theoretical knowledge on chronoscopy. However, this key of his has a consequence so accessible to the layman that almost anyone, everyone, can use it. Where does this fall into now? It may still be theoretical sciences, but Foster now has the same responsibility as an applied scientist.

While this is a situation never seen before in modern science, it is not an impossibility. Just because there hasn't been a theory that allows accessibly applications doesn't mean there won't be. And who knows, as we find out more and more about our current knowledge, there may be a shortcut to everything, that one day complicated devices can be made by the man in the street.

If a theoretical scientist has to carry the responsibility as an applied scientist, then what about his responsibility as a theoretical scientist? These two responsibilities, these two moral principles, become a dichotomy. Which one should he adhere to? Which one should guide what he does?

The applied scientist morals? Then what if, as raised in the story, this theoretical knowledge may have other potential applications that can benefit mankind? Don't forget: this key opens the gates of Heaven as well.

The theoretical scientist morals? Then who should pay for the drastic consequences that come along? Can society or even mankind sacrifice so much on grounds that knowledge is justification itself?

Another more extreme example: a fusion bomb. Right now, nuclear fusion is all but impossible. What if one day some theory appears that results in a hydrogen-fuelled Molotov cocktail? One bomb, same size, only difference: drop it, one city gone.

On the other hand, this also reminds me of my own belief that one day humans will destroy themselves. Firstly, in contrast to a century ago, it is now clearly possible for us to do that, and we have the potential to do so, considering the high-grade plutonium countries like US, Israel, North Korea, India and Pakistan are currently sitting on. We don't even need the warheads to kill every single intelligent life on Earth; just a couple of bombs and the nuclear winter that follows will likely clean up the stragglers.

And while today we have nuclear weapons as the main threat to mankind, another threat may be emerging: biological weapons, for example. Right now the technology is still at its infancy, but once someone manages its equivalent of the Manhatten Project, then we have two knives now pointing on mankind's throat.

We don't even have to stop there. Right now, efforts are placed heavily in computing and computer engineering to produce artificial intelligence. Although currently the research is nowhere groundbreaking, the destruction of the human civilisation by robots are well explored by sci-fi writers. A quote from The Second Renaissance (a film in Animatrix) perhaps well describes this scenario:

"Thus did Man become the architect of his own demise."

Another evidence for this comes from another direction. It is known as the Fermi paradox, which can be summarised as such: there are about a hundred billion stars in the visible Universe (we're not counting the Universe out of our visual reach), and a simple probabilistic calculation will show that amongst these there should be at least a significant number which has intelligent life. Why is it then that we seem so alone, that experimentally we have detected no signal of other intelligent life?

There are many explanations for this, but the one appearing most logical to me is that, it is inevitable that intelligent life will destroy itself. From an evolutionary perspective, for an intelligent species to rise up above all others, it has to be aggressive (arising from competition between its peers), destructive (so as to eliminate threats) and domineering (so as to subjugate other or even its own species). These traits of an intelligent species will eventually enable it to master destructive technologies, and ironically results in self-annihilation.

To detect intelligent life, the most common method is to search for abnormal electromagnetic radiation from outer space. That is due to the reasonable assumption that as an intelligent species rise up, it will gain knowledge of the electromagnetic force (one of the four fundamental forces), and resultingly use it as part of their survival. The use of electronic devices will result in the emission of electromagnetic radiation, and a sufficiently huge civilisation (like the human race) will produce lots of it.

Now, consider the human race: it has only been no more than two hundred years since we found control over electromagnetism. In contrast with how long human beings have been around and how long Earth has been around, this is nothing but a flicker in the cosmological timeline. Even if we last a few more hundred years before we go into self-destruction, the window of our "modern" existence is merely in the thousand-years scale. How likely is it then that in this very same window, there exists another intelligent species that are at a similar technological stage as us?

I don't know what all these seem to you, but to me, it seems to be evidence of an end for Man.

Durian Solves Pebble Question

2006-07-24T20:03:00.000+08:00

I was browsing through my weekly summary of physics news when I read the abstract of this article. It was amusing in two ways, but first, the abstract:

A question that has been around since the time of Aristotle -- what shape is a pebble? -- has now been solved by physicists in France and the US. Douglas Durian of the University of Pennsylvania and colleagues in Strasbourg say that a pebble is "a nearly round object with a near-Gaussian distribution of curvatures". All pebbles, regardless of their original shape, end up with a similar shape that depends solely on how the pebble was eroded over time. The results could help geologists determine the history of a pebble simply by looking at its geometry (Phys. Rev. Lett. 97 028001).

I find it amusing that pebbles can have such a delicate definition... It is surely interesting. Also, I think the researcher will be the topic of a handful of jokes if he were to work in NUS.

The Post of Mystery and Unknown

2006-07-23T19:59:00.000+08:00

Haven't been out (in the mystery and unknown sense) for quite a while... I feel so lonely...