Everything You Know is Wrong

• OWL can be, as the French would say, databasesque. Using OWL to implement database like integrity constraints.


• It's time to throw away your database (a paper describing the advantages of column databases) and replace it with something more flexible and scalable (using C-Store to store RDF). And column databases mean no NULLs. The problem isn't that your data is normalized it's that it's not normalized enough (also mentioned here).


• Following a question that I had earlier this year about where is the good code to learn from, I've read about 3/4 of Beautiful Code. And while I have a hard time finding C/C++ code beautiful it certainly covers some good examples of code and the process behind writing it (including Beautiful Tests, Beautiful Concurrency and MapReduce).


• Latency Moore's curse.


• Nova links to why what you thought about genes is wrong (I've actually heard this before but hadn't come across any articles).


• Scaling laws in Biology. Humans run on 100 watts or used to. Now we have cars etc. our power requirements are now 11,000 watts (making us the biggest creatures that have ever lived). And the magical number: 4.


• The Enemies of Reason is now on Google Video.

The Search for the Levitating Super-Turtle

Atheists: The New Gays "Prior to 9/11, it would have been career suicide for a public figure to come right out and say God is a fairy tale. Now it’s a feature of popular culture. You can see it on cable of course, in shows such as BullSh*t, Real Time, The Daily Show, and Southpark. But it’s also a feature of network TV. The main character on House is written as the most brilliant human on the planet, and he’s an atheist."

"Ask a deeply religious Christian if he’d rather live next to a bearded Muslim that may or may not be plotting a terror attack, or an atheist that may or may not show him how to set up a wireless network in his house. On the scale of prejudice, atheists don’t seem so bad lately."

A good preview of Dawkins book is here.

I've recently finished reading both "The God Delusion" and "The Goldilocks Enigma" and I found both books quite good. Seeing as though so many people commented last time I thought I'd post a bit more about what I think this time.

Much like the disappointment of revisiting old television shows of your youth, Dawkins' book is great for pointing out how truly bad those stories taught at Sunday school were, including Noah, Lot and Abraham. Although I must admit, even as a child I found the story of the flood and "The A-Team" both rather unbelievable. There are other interesting topics, like coming up with morals without religion, but I think these are better covered elsewhere.

One of the main things I got out of this book is that progress is about conscious raising. Most improvements have come about when a society becomes aware of a problem and goes about trying to solve them. Historically this includes human rights, more recently global warming and ones to fully take hold like animal rights. The other thing I got out of it is that I don't have as many problems with religion as Dawkins.

I found Dawkins the least convincing when he diverges from his areas of expertise especially when he tries to cover cosmology. This is especially apparent when you compare his counter argument against teleology (things look like they were designed therefore there must be a designer). Dawkins explanation in relation to biology is clear and concise but for cosmology its rather glossed over and there seems to be a bit of hand waving. He doesn't provide a good argument why evolution on a universal scale is well founded. This is where Paul Davies' book provides some better arguments for a rational creation of the universe.

Davies is actually a little bit more open to the idea of God than Dawkins which, when he chooses a different explanation, makes his arguments more convincing. The possible explanations of the universe he discusses include: absurd (no real cause), unique (there are no free parameters for the universe to be the way it is), the multiverse (String theory), intelligent design (God or Gods), the life principle and the self explaining universe. He says he prefers the latter two explanations. I found the most interesting explanation given is the self explaining universe. It uses quantum mechanics, casual loops and the requirement for the universe to understand itself.

The last chapter of the book is certainly the best and I wish he spent the whole book on the ideas in it instead. His description of the infinite regress as the levitating super-turtle is great. He also describes how Platonism is incorrect, especially at the beginning of the universe, and how the laws of physics have emerged over time.

I'm Sick of the Anti-Thor Rhetoric

The flying spaghetti monster "Why do you call yourself an atheist? Why not an agnostic?

Well, technically, you cannot be any more than an agnostic. But I am as agnostic about God as I am about fairies and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. You cannot actually disprove the existence of God. Therefore, to be a positive atheist is not technically possible. But you can be as atheist about God as you can be atheist about Thor or Apollo. Everybody nowadays is an atheist about Thor and Apollo. Some of us just go one god further.

When you're talking about God, are you really talking about the God of the Bible -- Yahweh of the Old Testament?

Well, as it happens, I am because I have an eye to the audience who's likely to be reading my book. Nobody believes in Thor and Apollo anymore so I don't bother to address the book to them. So, in practice, it's addressed to believers in the Abrahamic God."

More provactively, "My sense is that you don't just think religion is dishonest. There's something evil about it as well.

Well, yes. I think there's something very evil about faith, where faith means believing in something in the absence of evidence, and actually taking pride in believing in something in the absence of evidence. And the reason that's dangerous is that it justifies essentially anything. If you're taught in your holy book or by your priest that blasphemers should die or apostates should die -- anybody who once believed in the religion and no longer does needs to be killed -- that clearly is evil. And people don't have to justify it because it's their faith. They don't have to say, "Well, here's a very good reason for this." All they need to say is, "That's what my faith says." And we're all expected to back off and respect that. Whether or not we're actually faithful ourselves, we've been brought up to respect faith and to regard it as something that should not be challenged. And that can have extremely evil consequences. The consequences it's had historically -- the Crusades, the Inquisition, right up to the present time where you have suicide bombers and people flying planes into skyscrapers in New York -- all in the name of faith."

Richard Dawkins on the War

Bin Laden's victory "Whatever anyone may say about weapons of mass destruction, or about Saddam's savage brutality to his own people, the reason Bush can now get away with his war is that a sufficient number of Americans, including, apparently, Bush himself, see it as revenge for 9/11. This is worse than bizarre. It is pure racism and/or religious prejudice. Nobody has made even a faintly plausible case that Iraq had anything to do with the atrocity. It was Arabs that hit the World Trade Centre, right? So let's go and kick Arab ass. Those 9/11 terrorists were Muslims, right? And Eye-raqis are Muslims, right? That does it. We're gonna go in there and show them some hardware. Shock and awe? You bet. "

"Saddam Hussein has been a catastrophe for Iraq, but he never posed a threat outside his immediate neighbourhood. George Bush is a catastrophe for the world. And a dream for Bin Laden."

This is so dripping with vitriol. Richard Dawkins has previously written about how religion has caused so many of the world's problems and now he points out that American democracy may also be to blame.