The Brain is not a Digital Computer (The Muse In The Machine, Gelernter 1994)

David Gelernter. The Muse in the Machine. (1994) A strange book, which makes a number of major points or claims.

First, Gelernter posits a spectrum of attention, from the barely conscious, half-recalled dream state to the rational, hyper-focussed attention and linear thinking that we’ve learned to accept as the best kind. However, says Gelernter, creativity is highest when attention is low and the mind “wanders.” Hyper-focussed attention is on the contrary not very creative. Its main (and perhaps only) value is to bring order to the usually chaotic structures of the insights created when our attention is low.

There’s some truth to this. In fact, it’s become a pop-psych cliche. Every now and then some analogy tripped over when the mind wanders triggers an insight.  But in my experience those events are not guaranteed. In fact, they are rare enough to make them memorable. I think that pretty well everybody has worried a problem until a solution “presented itself” unexpectedly. But we know that it’s a process that we can’t control. About all we can infer is there is a lot of thinking well below the level of conscious attention, some of it surfaces, and occasionally the product is useful. We can allow this process to work by letting go of a problem and chilling. But there’s no guarantees.

A Wandering Mind?

Second, the mind is not software. I agree, in part for the reason Gelernter puts forward, which is that the analogy of  “mind” with “virtual machine” breaks down. A virtual machine is one that’s implemented in software running on another machine. Abstract the concept of “machine” to an entity that performs some task in response to some input, then any program is a virtual machine. E.g., the wordprocessor I’m using takes data from the keyboard, and transforms that into a block of data in memory. It sends copies of the data to the graphics processor, which translates them into a display on the monitor. When I hit Print, it sends data to the printer, which in turn lays microscopic dots of ink onto a sheet of paper. To my eye, it’s the text I composed.

This is not how the brain works.

The analogy is that “mind” is a massive data-processing program running on the brain. Or a mess of such programs running in parallel. Hence a virtual machine. Write the program(s) in a suitable language, and the “mind” can run on any capable “substrate.” Such is the fantasy supporting the desire to “upload” the self and live forever. Gelernter is no biologist, but he argues that his concept of an attention spectrum requires a body. IOW, a mind cannot exist apart from a body. I agree, but my reason is I think somewhat simpler. The brain’s primary function is to operate the body. Most of its energy is expended in doing just that.

(https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thinking-hard-calories/)

 “Thinking”, such as it is, takes up a very small part of the brain’s energy budget. Being “me” is what thinking is mostly about, and it’s really just an afterthought.

The last part of the book is a nicely done symbolic reading of  The Song of Solomon. Gelernter is a believing Orthodox Jew. He posits that the hyper-focussed attention that we nowadays equate with thinking is a recent development. (Schooling is intended to train us to think this way.) An unfortunate effect of high-attention rational thought is a misreading of ancient texts, which are, he says, the products or records of low-attention thinking, hence their nonlinear narratives, symbolism and metaphor, and reliance on analogy to make both narrative and thematic sense. I think this is the most valuable part of the book. But it doesn’t prove that the concept of an attention spectrum explains creativity.

A curious book, with many interesting and useful insights. Worth a read. **½

AI: A Conceptual Problem

AI is really a conceptual problem.

What is "human intelligence"? I think for most people it's a fuzzy concept combining self-awareness, reasoning, information processing, problem solving, symbol manipulation, insight, etc. In other words, not clear enough to make good sense when thinking about machine intelligence.

What is "thinking"? ChatGPT seems to think, but all it does it string together words and phrases and sentences, based on some probabilities that were calculated during its training. I've tried it several times, and what I notice about it is that it uses vast amounts of cliche. Which is not at all surprising, since cliches by definition are more likely to occur in text than original tropes. Its output makes sense, but it's yawn-inducing boring.

On the other hand, I think all those processes, plus processes not yet understood or recognised, are necessary for sentience and self awareness. Will machines get there? Maybe. The real danger is that we will confuse their making sense with wisdom, and rely on them to do things only humans should do. Such a judge guilt and innocence.

Footnote: The most common imagery of robots shows them as humanoid. But all robots currently at work are machines that look nothing like human beings. They're basically arms.

Computer languages aren't languages

I posted this on a newsgroup:

A computer language isn't a language. Formatting code to make it easier for humans to use doesn't make it a language. Computer code at root describes switching sequences. That's all. Recall that the very first machines were coded by rerouting cables between switches.

Human languages don't code, they present what (for want of a better phrase) I call "intersecting ambiguities". That's why you can understand sentences that include words you've never encountered before (it's how we learned our native language in the first place). It's why we can shift word-usage, and be fairly confident that our hearers and readers will get at least enough of what we intend that they can ask good questions about what we mean.

The ambiguities etc of human language are paradoxically also the reason that statistical and pattern analysis of samples has produced successful translation AIs, and AIs that write boilerplate news reports (eg, for sports and business). The most recent language-writing AI can imitate your personal style well enough that it's impossible for the casual reader to detect a forgery. That will not end well.

Artificial Intelligence (AI): A series of notes

2005-06-20
“If it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck” (Ancient wisdom)

Unless it’s a model of a duck.

Artificial Intelligence is model building – we want autonomous machines, but the best we can do is build models of autonomous machines.

Eg, an artificial ant could be made to behave like an ant in many ways, but not as an ant in an anthill, or capable of making more ants.

2015-10-21
It’s probably possible to make an artificial ant that behaves like an ant in anthill. We may even be able to make an artificial ant that can reproduce in some way.

However, “behave like an ant” is not well defined. There are too many behaviours, and some are obviously easier to mimic than others. Nevertheless, it will soon be possible to make an ant-size robot that can navigate like an ant, climb vertical surfaces like an ant, etc.

But it will always be a model of ant, and therefore its behaviour will in some respect will not be antlike, and in other respects will be a bad imitation of ant behaviour. That’s simply the nature of models. Models are mixtures of emulation and imitation.

2016-05-15
Intelligence is even less well-defined than “ant behaviour”. We can mimic some intelligent behaviours, eg, sorting, learning correlations, recognising patterns, and so on, which are useful to augment human tasks such as diagnosis of a fault or illness, or finding the data we want. If a task is well enough defined, we can build a machine to do it.

But that’s the problem: “Intelligence” is simply not well enough defined. My notion of it is the ability to apply and adapt existing knowledge and insight to unanticipated problems. Every term in that definition is fuzzy and vague. Anyhow, some people (including me) would argue it’s more of a definition of creativity than intelligence.

Is consciousness part of  “intelligence”? Many people would say it is. A machine that merely solves problems isn’t intelligent, it’s just an algorithm. It’s not enough to know how to do long division, you have to be able to recognise when and why you should do it. An intelligent entity then would be able to apply the rules of the algorithm to another problem. This claim entails that intelligence can abstract rules and patterns, and recognise them in different contexts.

“Understanding” is another component of intelligence. Isn’t it? Well, it does have something to do with learning: an intelligent person is one who can make sense of new explanations. “I don’t get it” at one extreme means “I haven’t figured it out yet”, at the other it means “I can’t figure it out”. The latter is a measure of intelligence.

And that’s just three attempts to make sense of “intelligence”. We’re long way from knowing exactly what we mean by “artificial intelligence”. Far enough that we may not even recognise it when we see it.

The recent development of “deep learning” artificially intelligent neural nets crystallises the problem. It’s already clear that we can evaluate the results of their operations, but we can’t figure out how they do it. What’s more, they have come up with solutions that humans have not only not produced, but have trouble recognising as viable solutions. For example, some AIs are better then humans at recognising cancerous tissue.

2018-07-03
If we accept “intelligence” as a label for problem-solving abilities, then consciousness is not required. That makes the neural-net AIs more than a little spooky.

Facebook and Cambridge Analytica

Why all the fuss about Facebook data being mined by a third party for political purposes? Facebook has been selling personal data to advertisers (and I think to anyone else that paid the price) from the very beginning. Its business is collecting and selling data about you. That’s the service for which they get paid. You don’t pay them to provide the means of keeping in touch with your friends.

So why the shock when it’s revealed that some people want to sell you political beliefs instead of shoes? When it comes to “free” media like TV and Facebook, you are the product.

I think the only surprise is that someone had a pang of conscience and revealed Cambridge Analytica’s shenanigans. You can be quite sure that Facebook data is being mined by anyone that wants to do so. Heck, you can do it yourself on your own machine. Just snip and save whatever you want, and look it over at your leisure. I’m pretty sure there are programs out there that will do this for you automatically. Look for “archiving software”.

Facebook was designed to be easy and convenient to use, and that is what makes it open to anyone who wants to mine data. It links files together so that many people can, if they wish, read the same file: A note about your meal, a picture, a link to a website, a video, whatever. And each of these items is labelled with your name. It has to be. Else it couldn’t be seen by you on your Facebook page.

But that means that Facebook has that labelled stuff on its servers. If there’s enough labelled stuff about you, it’s easy to figure out what kind of person you are. That’s what makes that data valuable for advertisers. It’s how Facebook figures out what ads to show you. It’s how Amazon decides to show you what “People who bought this also bought...” Etc. IOW, Facebook etc merely do what we all do: A “person we know" is really the collection of everything we know about them, plus what we think it all means.

What isn’t clear is how Cambridge Analytica got hold of all that data. There’s a good deal of fudging around this question. Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has said almost nothing. It seems CA hacked into Facebook’s servers to get the data,. That’s bad. But if Facebook sold them the data, I think that’s worse.

Cells are computers, organisms are fractals

     Cells are computers, organisms are fractals

Some notes towards a concept. I’ve long thought that the notion that a neuron as an on-off switch was too simplistic. These notes represent an attempt to produce a better notion. 2016-06-03 & 05. WEK.

The metaphor of DNA as blueprint is misleading. Better: DNA is a program guiding the assembly of proteins. Better yet: It’s the operating system, since it’s RNA that produces the proteins. But if DNA is a program, then the question is, How does it execute? The answer: like any program, at any given time some part is running, the other parts are silent. A program can also trigger other programs. The operating system controls how multiple programs run, it allocates memory and CPU time, access to video and audio subsystems etc. A “call” from one program will stop or start some part of another program. An “interrupt” will cause (re-)allocation of memory, access to subsystems, etc. DNA starts and stops protein synthesis, turns genes on and off, analogous to OS controlling program execution. So the cell is a computer

Recent research shows that inputs to the cell “turn genes on and off”, analogous to calls and interrupts controlling how a program runs. The genes control the functioning of the cell. Exactly how is complicated, but the general pattern is chemical feedback loops. A substance increases, which triggers or stops gene expression, which results in a series of reactions, which cause that substance to decrease, which stops or triggers gene expression, and the cycle repeats.

A neuron responds to the chemical environment outside it by adjusting its internal processes. These processes control gene expression. The feedback loops within the neuron determine the types and quantity of neurotransmitters emitted at the synapse with the next neuron in the circuit. Since both type and quantity of neurotransmitter vary depending on the inputs to the neuron, the neuron is computing the output. The concept of a neuron as simple on-off switch is inadequate.

But a cell is an odd kind of computer. The relation between input and output depends on the internal feedback loops. A given substance may be implicated in two or more feedback loops, which means that the neuron is topologically a net. The computation of the output depends on the topology of the net of chemical reactions, which happen both simultaneously and in sequence. That makes the cell a parallel computer.

More precisely, the cell is a net whose topology varies over time as the chemical feedback loops cycle between limiting states and intersect with each other. Thus, the cell cycles through a series of topologies. It’s a self-modifying net.

The concept of a self-modifying net applies to assemblies of cells (tissues), to organs, and to the organism as whole. The organism too is a complex system of feedback loops. Mathematically it’s a chaotic system: it tends to maintain itself within an envelope of states (the attractors). Illness and disease move the system outside the envelope, and recuperation is a return of the system to the dynamically stable cycles within the envelope.

Conclusion: An organism is a multi-dimensional net of feedback loops. Its topology varies over time at many scales, which implies it’s a fractal system.

Codebreaker (2011)

     Codebreaker (2011) [D: Clare Beavan and Nic Stacey. Ed Stoppard, Henry Goodman, and contemporaries and family of Turing] Short documentary about Alan Turing, about his work as code breaker at Bletchley Park, his seminal papers on computing, and his conviction for gross indecency and his eventual suicide. He was sentenced to receive stilboestrol, a synthetic oestrogen, which among other things messes up the brain. The title is ambiguous: Turing broke two codes.
     Alternating between voice-over narration of Turing’s life and dramatised sessions with Franz Grünbaum, the psychiatrist who treated Turing (and who became his friend), the film is an effective indictment of the attitudes that destroyed one of the most brilliant minds we’ve been privileged to know. We are somewhat less benighted now, but there are discouraging signs of increasing acceptance of hostility towards those who depart too far from current norms. It’s depressing to watch a story about the destruction of human being.
     The movie reminded me of how the Turing Test has evolved over time. For a while, I participated in a newsgroup about artificial intelligence. We ascribe awareness, self-awareness, personality, etc, because of the  behaviours of our fellow creatures. Sometimes, we go too far: I don’t think a snail is aware of pain, even though it recoils from flame. But it is certainly capable of learning, if by that we mean changes in behaviour that depend on the history of the individual. Since learning is an essential component of intelligence, the snail has some degree of intelligence. And since we see intelligence of varying complexity in many different creatures, it’s no stretch at all to expect that machines will exhibit intelligence. It’s when we conflate intelligence with self-awareness, with consciousness, that we get into trouble. More precisely, “intelligence” as a cognitive trait is far too stretchy a term. For many people, it includes creativity, for example. For many others, it requires not only problem solving, but also awareness that one is solving a problem. And so on.
     Recently, I came across a fact I’d ignored, and a comment that reframes Turing’s Test.
     The fact is that Turing machines are incredibly inefficient compared to brains. We can compute “that’s Uncle Fred, and he’s happy” in a fraction of a second expending a few joules of energy. A machine needs longer and expends many kilojoules of energy to compute that “That’s Uncle Fred”, and it can’t (yet) compute that he’s happy.
     The comment is that the Turing Test is really about humans, not machines. It tests whether the human can be fooled by a machine. And since the program is devised by a human, it really tests whether one human can fool another one. But we already knew that.
     It’s mark of Turing’s gift to us that even as we mourn him, we want to think about the things that mattered to him. ***

A warning about clickable links (Update)

I checked one of my posts today, and it's littered with clickable links that take you to bad websites. If you click, you get a pop-up that offers information about some products. I checked one, and Web of Trust warned that the website was evil. It looks like someone has infected blogger.com.

Do Not Click on any of these links. Any link that insert has been and will be intrioduced with "More information here" or some such phrase.

I checked another blog, and  the same thing happened, but not immediately, so it could be just a local infection. I'll be checking on that.

Update: The computer was infected with something called "coupon loader", that presented itself as an extension to Firefox. I had neglected to install Vipre. When I did install Vipre, it found the installer and eliminated it.
Update 2: However, Coupon Loader still existed as a program. I deleted the relevant program folders in C:/Program Files and C:/Program Files (x86), and that fixed the problem.

Email encryption (link)

Came across this link to an email encryption system. Sounds good, but I think that the spooks don't need to know what's in the email. If you are a "person of interest", it's enough to know that you are using this service. And the path of the mail can be traced whether it's encrypted or not.

Paul Love et al. Beginning Unix (2005)

     Paul Love et al. Beginning Unix (2005) A nicely laid out and easy to follow introduction to the OS that will perhaps eventually displace Windows. Surprising fun, too. I can’t judge the accuracy etc, but it seems authoritative to me. Three years is a long time in computing, so some of the information is already out of date: Linux is maturing rapidly, with several easy-to-install and easy-to-use distributions, so that the kind of hands-on familiarity with Unix taught in this text is no longer necessary. Recommended. *** (2008)
     Update 2013: Unix has not displaced Windows, in fact, in many places Windows Server has replaced *nix servers. Linux has slowly gained in overall  numbers, but has hardly moved in market share. Android a derivative of Linux, operates over half the cellphones in the world.
     Update 2016: Not much change. Ubuntu and Mint  have both been made to look'n'feel like the de facto standard Windows/Mac GUI, and have gained some ground. But the OS wars are pretty well over. Most people have no idea what an OS is, and have a hard time caring enough to find out. Computers have become "devices", people have come to expect them to just work. Many people now own two or more devices, and wireless connections (with or without a network) is taken for granted. Security and privacy-protection skills are now more important than understanding an OS. The pace of technical innovation and change has accelerated: this book is now a museum piece.

Blackberry (Commentary)

Update 2020-02-23: Blackberry has survived, a gaunt shadow of its former self. Meanwhile, what the Playbook should have been has appeared. The  Surface tablet (now in its 7th iteration), does everything that I expected the Playbook to do, and more besides. Smartphones exceed Playbook's capability, too. Many kinds of tablets, some better and some worse than an iPad, clutter the shelves. The iPad has been hugely improved, but Appple has not yet made it an true alternative to its notebooks and laptops. The latest high-end Windows and Android tablets are also phones. They have sufficient connectivity, wired and wireless, that they can function as desktops when hooked up to real keyboards and monitors.We're only a step or two away from a single, OS-neutral device that can do anything, either natively or via links to other devices.

.................................................................................................................................................................
Blackberry, formerly RIM, has tanked. On Friday 27 September 2013, its stock was selling under $8. Its sales of the new phones are well below expectations. People just don’t want Blackberrys any more.

Why?

Thinking back to introduction of the Playbook may provide a few clues. At the time, the iPad was cool, but for many people the cool factor wasn’t enough to justify an extra $100 or $200. When I heard that RIM would offer a tablet, I expected something new and better than an iPad. More power. An OS that would run 3rd party programs. More connectivity. A better camera. But mostly,  I expected the tablet to be a phone.

I think that Blackberry didn’t realise is that there’s a non-Apple market out there. A market that wants something more versatile than an iPad. Apple’s products have always been very good at what they do, but they’ve also always done very little for the price. So, what we got was a slightly better iPad that synced to a Blackberry phone.

What drives the tablet market is the dream of a single device that will do everything. Hence the huge number of “apps” available from the Apple store, and now also available “for your Android device”. Most of these apps merely link to websites, but many do real work, and of course there are lots of games.

Since Blackberry didn’t have the time or expertise to develop a slew of apps, it really had only two doable tasks:
     One, develop “apps” for the basics, such as web surfing and email. This could have been done by buying and improving a couple of available products.
     Two, build the OS so that the user could install any 3rd party program or app that they wanted. A Linux-based OS with a Windows virtual machine would have worked well for this.

And of course, make the tablet a phone, too. To do this comfortably would require a device with a 5" to 6" screen. The latest Superphones with 4.5" screens are creeping up to that size. The mini-iPad is approaching it from the other end. I think we’ll end up with tablet phones. Or maybe we’ll end up with Skype and texting as the preferred phone modes, which will make a 9 to 10 inch screen just right.

There were voices that expressed a wish for a small, powerful tablet that could be used as a phone. Mine was one of them. But I guess these desires were too blue-sky for Blackberry. Or else they were so focussed on beating Apple at its own game that they didn’t have enough attention left over to think about alternatives. Pity. Blackberry could have taken the tablet-phone a leap or two ahead of the competition.

2013-09-20

Marcel Gagné. Moving to Linux (2004)

     Marcel Gagné. Moving to Linux (2004) A clear and readable manual of how to set up Linux, how to use its features, and how to use the most common applications, including what sound like some cool games. Gagné obviously loves Linux, knows it very well, and has a an elevated regard for his own wit. A very good book that I would recommend to anyone with enough confidence in his or her computer skills to contemplate making the switch from Windows to Linux. Now, I really must get going on doing just that... *** (2005)
     Update 2013: I've tried several versions of Linux, and have settled on Mint, a variant of Ubuntu, which was pretty good until the devs concocted something they called the Unity desktop. Awful. Almost as bad as the new Windows 8. I have Mint on an old laptop, which I take with me when we travel, as Linux-based machines are more secure when using a public wi-fi. Few manufacturers make Linux drivers for current hardware,m though, so I don't have Linux on any of our other machines. On the other hand, Mint automagically recognised the TV when I plugged it in. Nice. Downside: the old laptop is too slow to play HD videos.

Evanescence

Evanescence
2013-05-08
     This evening, we watched a documentary about Yousuf Karsh, portrait photographer. Towards the end, the curator of his estate mentioned that printing his negatives is becoming ever more difficult, because there is less and less paper and chemistry being produced. A historian wondered how much of the mass of digital images being made would be available for historians 20, 30, 100 years from now. He didn’t answer, but we can surmise it will be a very small, and randomly biased, sample. There were a few shots of people working with digitised imagery.
     I’m digitising my collection of negatives and slides, an interesting, frustrating, sometimes heartbreaking, and often tedious job. Tonight’s session was interrupted by getting the garbage ready for tomorrow: I threw out several of Jon’s floppy diskettes that were no longer readable. I’d used my best utilities to scavenge what I could from them, but most of the data was gone. Jon may have copied some of the data to his hard drives, but it will be almost impossible to tell. He also left some notebooks, most of the notes recording data for games he played, but here and there he wrote poems and bits of prose. These will be digitised, too, but we will keep the paper copies: paper will last longer than floppy disks or hard drives or DVDs.
     All data eventually vanishes. We have records from certain periods of the past only because the bureaucratic mind desires records, hoards facts and data. At one time, most data was created by bureaucrats. Then printing drove a demand for new content, and writers and poets left records of their works in progress, notebooks and diaries and drafts of essays and stories. Now, most content is created by digital media, and most of it is of no more (or less) permanent interest than casual conversation. Very little of this will be kept for any length of time, and even less will ever be examined. Automated data searches will no doubt flag what’s worth keeping, or worth using for whatever nefarious purposes the State has in its bureaucratic mind. But most information has very short-lived value. As it is, the scraps of paper that survive the decades and centuries do so as much by accident as by design. Later generations have different notions of what’s important to know or understand. What we wish to be remembered by may not matter to our descendants.
     Evanescence is the fate of all information. Electronic information will vanish more quickly than anything our ancestors produced: information that requires electricity to be read is doomed to obsolescence. Only an obsessive regimen of repeated conversion to new media will preserve it for more than a decade or two. For ourselves, we can at best hope for being recorded in some living memories and some randomly surviving hard copies of photographs or text, and perhaps a few artifacts that mattered to us, or that we created.

Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (Helen Fielding)

     Helen Fielding Bridget Jones: The Edge of Reason (Picador, 1999) Kathryn gave me this book after failing to finish it. After failing to finish it myself, I understand her reasons: Fielding is a one-trick dog. The first Bridget Jones book had the advantage of freshness, and Bridget did display some change and development. This Bridget is trapped in her angst and neurosis. The closest she comes to change is to remind herself of what she believes she has become, a resourceful, responsible woman of substance. The constant repetition gets tiresome – plot consists of more than happenings. Also, the book has a lot of the feel of The Diary of a Nobody about it, we are supposed to feel superior to poor Bridget and laugh at her inability to get out of her emotional tarpits. Leaves a bad taste. Didn’t finish. *

Impossibility (book)

John D. Barrow Impossibility (1998) There are several kinds of impossibility, but they fall into three groups. There is the practical impossibility, reflecting some limits to the resources we (or any other creature) can command. Then the nature of the Universe itself sets limits on the possible. And all logical systems above a certain level of complexity exhibit impossibilities.
     An example of practical impossibility is the solution of problems that would take more computing time than the lifetime of the Universe; another is travelling beyond the solar system. Whether the Universe has a beginning or not is an example of a question we cannot answer because, although we can specify what we should need to know in order to settle the question, we cannot get the necessary knowledge. An example of a logical impossibility is expressed in Godel's theorem, which states that any axiomatic system at least as complex as arithmetic contains statements whose truth or falsehood cannot be determined
     A more interesting example is Arrow's Impossibility theorem: as the number of candidates for office increases, the probability that there will be no majority winner. approaches certainty. What this means in practice is that whoever wins, most people wanted someone else. The result can be generalised to any situation with multiple, mutually independent choices . It also applies to sporting events. Where several teams compete for a championship, there is surprisingly large possibility that the winner can be (and often has been) beaten by one or more of the losers. With 8 teams, the odds of this happening are 1 in 3.
     Barrow is a somewhat turgid writer. There are irritating typographical errors throughout the book, mostly of the wrong-word variety; an effect of reliance on spell checkers. The book is heavy going in places. I have read similar discussions elsewhere, and so didn't get hopelessly lost, but anyone who hasn't at least a senior high school understanding of physics, logic, mathematics, and other disciplines will probably have trouble following some of Barrow's arguments. Nevertheless, it's worth reading, if only to disabuse one of the notion that all things are possible. Barrow's most subtle point is this: that impossibilities, the limits of action and knowledge, tell us more about the nature of our Universe than the possibilities do. *** (1999)

Update 2012: if quantum computers do become a reality, then the range of solvable problems will enlarge by many orders of magnitude. Then question then become which of these problems are worth solving, which may be impossible to answer without solving the problem.

Update 2019: Minor correcctions in style and spelling.

Steampunk Nintendo case (link)

A story via Boing Boing about a nice uncle who made a steampunk case for an old Nintendo unit:
http://boingboing.net/2012/09/27/steampunk-nintendo-casemod.html
Hey, that's what uncles are for!


Steampunk is an art movement that uses faux-Victorian design and engineering styles to create an alternative-universe of technology. Lovely stuff purely as art, wonderful as fantasy, and inspiring for those who want to think about how the world might have evolved if tipping-point events had happened sooner (or later) than they did in our history. More at:
http://www.steampunk.com/

Link: How to create good passwords

Steve Gibson offers a bunch of interesting stuff on this web page:
https://www.grc.com/haystack.htm

My takeaway: Use a line from a favourite poem, and mix in one or more numbers you know well, plus some randomly selected symbols.
Example: Shall I compare thee to a summers day
Transmogrified becomes:
Shall:I19compare40Thee?01to30a353summer's21day!

This is not one of my passwords, BTW. ;-) The reason such passwords work is that they are easy for humans to remember, but difficult for other humans to guess.

I was browsing around looking for icons, and found Pixelgirl (google it). Very nice icons, suitable for children and kittens. I downloaded a few for Marie's laptop, since I don't like the bland icons offered by MS. They also have icons for the Mac, in fact some are available only in that format.

Then I looked at a few links on Pixelgirl's page, and found this: also very nice. Interesting photos etc. Liu is a designer. Go have a look, and see if you share my taste in photography.

http://www.cmliu.com/