Maybe im missing out on something. the new net-cool? the new net-savvy? the new net-garang? the new net-chivalry? perhaps i can now see y the political parties r perpetually talking abt engaging the net, the web (wadever they call it). when the net is now not merely a system of connected pages, information n individuals, but ideas, opinions n trends, it has become more of a wave of truisms n tautologies, propagated by massive knots of king-pin bloggers n internet columnists. hey wait. y the complicated logic? we r supposed to go political bashing arent we?

R we entitled a no? some claim this rising tide is the one tt will float all boats. some say its the only way to escape the "crutch mentality". some believe its the way we attain the economic nirvana of addressing income inequality over the smoke of gdp growth. when campaigning for social welfare is the new cause; when mentioning the "besieged mentality" is the new logic; when (mis)quoting our dear friend lky is the new evidence; when writing pages on the harms of too many new PRs is the new article. it certainly is easy to catch on, no?

Oh, yes... n dont forget this whole idea of free press n self-censorship, u noe? n no racism = no talking on any thing abt race n religion, tia bo? n the ob markers? even ah bengs follow the law, then we netizens also have our law to follow. hey. so no more of this race thingy (who cares abt pm lee n his national day rally speech) n lets go back to laughing at the mda rap n recounting how this ah tiong stole which gd friends job.

Perhaps, im really missing out on something.

Current Location: between 2009 and 2010
Current Mood: recharged
Current Music: shuo huang

I'm desperately trying to make this sound un-childish.

--------

The conclusion of Copenhagen has been viewed with due mix of skepticism and necessity. While it leaves open the question of how we could combat climate change, it has also re-opened the discussion on the effectiveness of global cooperation.

I recall a talk i attended back in cambridge on copenhagen. then, it was before the actual summit and a number of the delegates decided to speak to a cambridge audience (students, residents alike). perhaps one of the more memorable questions asked the panel abt wad they expected out of copenhagen, wad they hope would b achieved at copenhagen. i do recall one of the speakers, perhaps a social entrepreneur, who mentioned his only hope of obtaining global consensus.

The world has agreed on the importance of a global movement on climate change and, together, we recognize the disproportional effects of climate change on nations - small island states, coastal cities, sub-saharan states, etc. Notwithstanding this consensus, nations, however, differ on how disproportionately the burden of combating climate change should be borne. Can we really attribute the 'origin' of global warming to a particular group of countries? Can we condone future actions because others have wronged before? Or is the purported 'global cooperation' merely still a pursuit of national interests and a policy of beggar thy neighbour? If the Iraq War has sufficient conviction to effect a considerable 'global effort', what differences have set apart global warming and climate change from the Iraq War to warrant immense deliberation over targets backed by legal reprise?

-------

I will be embarking on a project on the home-front. Most people may feel that the s'porean stance on climate change has been dependent on a few premises:
(i) we are too small a 'polluter' to contribute to global warming
(ii) we are not in a position to campaign for reductions in carbon emissions on a global stage
(iii) we prepare for the day when reduction is inevitable, eg. develop environtech niches
What exactly is our stance on climate change? What have we done to so-called 'prepare ourselves for the era of carbon reductions'?

I intend to perform a compilation of environmental policies that has been pushed out so far and attempt to infer the direction of the leadership on environmental issues. It might also be possible to re-evaluate the weight of the first two premises in light of these inferences.

-------

This is a call for aid, contacts and partnerships.

bah... 77/44.

Current Mood: eager

I have always found taxi drivers particularly perspective... It is a matter of profession? (I don't recall my hair-stylist as being very chirpy...) Anyways, tts besides e pt...

As always, upon boarding e taxi, e driver starts (of course!) by asking u e destination etc... eventually this moves on to e traffic condition (suppose it wasnt too gd). then he starts complaining abt how its got to b so stupid tt e roads r jamming for no reason at 3pm. then somehow u end up talking abt e f1 grand prix with him. (huh?? dont c e connection?? nvm, i didnt either...)

My perspective taxi driver starts by garnering ur buy-in, "well of course, u would agree tt e f1 racing does bring in much benefits for the country." (in chinese)

N e change of tone, "But i find it quite silly to have it in e city. u noe, e govt cannot, because of greater benefit, make e shop owners at suntec have no business. only taxi can enter e area now. last yr, not even taxi leh."

Our talkative taxi driver goes on, attempting to gain more ground while he thinks he makes sense (so far he does), "I find its a prob with e organization lah. u put a track in the city, u need to block all e roads. e hotels do well, but e shops suffer. n also its not very accessible."

Then comes e theory/proposition, "I think accessibility very impt leh. u shldn't just out of nowhere just make a few days got this funny race, then block all e roads. take a week or so to block e roads. i think they (e govt) shld have a central site for all these racing."

With all responsible arguments, e taxi driver feels compelled to recognize e current situation n make e necessary rebuttal, "I noe u would say (which i couldn't really b too bothered to raise) tt e govt planning to build some new racing complex at changi. yar. changi is quite an open space. but still will also hinder e freight services n companies wad."

Finally, e provision of a suggestion, in complete alignment with wad our govt advises us to provide with every piece of criticism, "I think lim chu kang tt area very gd to have racing complex leh. e place very open, got no business to hinder, also got so many expressway. even e ang moh pass by on e expressway also cannot miss lah. lim chu kang also very near army camp. they want mobilize all those ns ppl, zoom immediately there."

Satisfied with his gp-ly organized argument, complete with intro, differing opinions n suggestion, e taxi driver lets out a huge laugh, "Wouldnt u agree?"

At least my mum had e patience to tell him he could reflect HIS opinions to e planning comm. every1 is entitled to an opinion, but i couldnt care less in debating. spore seems ever further from our ideal democracy...

bah... 77/44.

returning to e 8 wk chiong-ing regime again... sigh... i super miss e quiet taxi drivers there. perhaps cause im asian tts y they r refraining from speaking. sounds gd to me.

Current Mood: disappointed
Current Music: nibawoguanzui

Its been a while since i have posted. perhaps sufficiently long to even make my own posts seem foreign to me. perhaps the past has long shrunk to a line. a time line.

but tts not really the line im thinking abt.

to many ppl, lines r pretty impt. to mathmos, lines might mean an asymptote, a divide between wad makes sense n not. lines might b parallel n non-intersecting or intersecting at infinity. lines may b circles n circles lines. but its not these sort of lines im thinking. my commander used to say tt theres a fine line between right n wrong; success or failure. but there is a line n there is one side u r on. perhaps its usually this fine line, the infinitely thin double-ended ray determining a direction or its reverse. a boundary dividing a space into two. perhaps even the dotted line is not something im looking for. it is a representation of "openness" - unapproachable, but at least u could get as close as u like to it.

lets take an example. where is the line between being open/liberal in thinking and being socially correct. i was walking home one day - as per usual down the canal after having routinely and deftly averted the irritating person trying to convince me to sign up for different charities everyday. wheres the line tt makes ppl normal or salesmen. anyways, this group of 4 lower sec students proceeded in front of me. among them, a girl n boy in uniform were holding hands, her head upon his shoulders, neither of them taller than my shoulders. the super-conservative old lady could have very well come along n shelled them with all sort of confucius teachings n san zi jing (only to receive quite some bit of si zi jing herself). or conversely, the cool n "open" western ed youth could condemn the old lady as being conservative, a country bumpkin, blah blah blah... perhaps there really isnt an easy line to draw here.

but perhaps it is fated tt i m required to find this line. not long later (n perhaps when it seems like other than the 4 of them, im the only other person left along the canal), to quite my amazement, the other 2 students - apparently lower sec boys in CVs - placed arms around each other's waists n drew their heads to each other. thought-provoking...

ill raise perhaps another example. recently, my friend probed me on the latest ndp theme song on facebook. hm quite nice i would say. so then i did a status post "wad do you see". perhaps almost instantly, another friend replied n posted a comment/link of mrbrowns "lekuasimi" underneath. hm also quite interesting i would say. the first friend pondered abt how "old ppl" r not likely to appreciate the song. so well, i decided i might as well check youtube's comments on the video. the song received 4.5 stars, with sufficiently many reviews to achieve, wad i might consider reliable (unless my hongkee is to insist tt its a propaganda thingy, i dont care) a young kid also commented tt he didnt like the song; a couple of ppl struggled to say they were singaporeans (???) a PR recognized it as one of the best recent ndp songs. well...
each of us prob have a line somewhere to dictate wad is nice or not. one person gave me quite some insight with this comment "This song at first i hear is not good but slowly i find it nice...... " n this sort of reminded me of something quite some while ago - the MDA rap. perhaps as how the speaker for MDA rap suggested. she too felt initially disgusted with the rap, but came along to appreciate it after time. im apprehensive... where really have our line gone?

i presume there always comes a time when we have to find a line. most of the time, we r not appreciative of the line, but only more concerned abt determining boundaries, the 38th parallel, locus of points, ... rarely do we actually see these lines as wad hold things together - as orbits "holding" (reflecting gravity) our moral planets on their course. there always comes a time when we no longer know where our lines are, n when we have to re-discover and establish them.

bah... 77/44.

Current Music: what do you see

I used to have the sickening prob of having to find activities during the exam periods. It is perhaps no exception now. As the bubble evolves into a tortoise shell, each college room starts its asymptotic slide into a space-time warp, with their occupants never to appear till eons later. Or perhaps not, perhaps it is just me who is living in a different universe.

Sometimes we wonder wad we really have our friends for. I recall the age-old convo with yeesian abt gengrui n recently with my junior abt “my own” definition of friendship. Now, stuck in my convolution of a space-time room, it is starting to look (in various peculiar geometries) like the same old recycle bin concept, aggrandized n taken contrapositives. Perhaps this is the new culture (or merely the symptoms of one without religion as my most earnest corridor-mate might suggest) – the instinctive junking of all tt is considered uncool n adopting another which is just a recycled product of repackaging. What r friends really for? Or r they merely just my way of filling up timetables, my unsatisfiable desire for popularity?

Many ppl tell me im a mathmo (math monster in cambridge terms), along with it the associated properties of a hermit n weirdo (if they do not alr come hand-in-hand). I m expected to enjoy my sole black hole, unspottable on the galactic map n gladly avoidable by all. Death awaits all which falls in. In comparison, suns enjoy their harem of planets and entourage of paparazzi meteors. My corridor-mates like to say im least of a mathmo as any arnd. Perhaps, i really am. Or perhaps its just the self-deceit of one desperately dodging the recycle bin.

I shld start learning how to respect this space-time contortion – the singularity of self-existence.

bah…    77/44.

Let’s not talk abt e barefoot incident…

Anyways, i had recently (a few days ago) attended a talk regarding going global. incidentally, i was reminded of the book “the collapse of globalism” (by John Ralston Saul) tts still sitting (somewhere) in my room. if only i had the ability to comment on some of the arguments in there. grah. but anyways, the speaker started off with some reasons for going global n then moved on to his own case study of how he was tasked to make a company global. tt duely said, i was knowingly disappointed. somehow i expected a deeper discussion on the methods rather than a sort of gloss over of main “principles” per se. but it did inspire this post, so well….

I have read at least the first chapter of “the collapse of globalism”. perhaps as a stunning realization of tt, the financial world is in turmoil n in many places, countries r undertaking protectionistic measures. us is divided with the eu on the course of action n china complains on the reliability of us treasury bonds. and then…. alas. swine flu. ultimately, this beckons the qn of whether globalization/globalism is merely a passing interest (or as how John Ralston Saul puts it, globalism the experiment) or the final and end state. if so, wad is the next BIG thing to follow from globalism?

The main idea in “the collapse of globalism” is the refusal tt globalism is the natural procession of social n economic order. by investigating many aspects of socio-economic development, the author comes to the conclusion tt globalism is retreating n a new wave of nationalism is impending. in my opinion, globalization will eventually only become a tool for nations who want to exploit them. certainly, some nations r in no need of globalism. china was somewad isolated from the world b4 the recent “opening up”. yet, the huge nation survived on its own economy n development. globalization might eventually become a solely economic tool for countries who would like to exploit a global market (at the cost of disbenefits).

I posed this qn to my friend, the economist. quote: how much larger than we get if it is already the entire world? perhaps. i was recently dabbling in Steven Strogatz “Sync” (btw, he is coming to cambridge to give a talk on the 19th :) ). in the book, he dissected the theory of synchronous flashing of lights of fireflies. perhaps globalization is merely a state of synchronization - an active participation of the individual nations in a chorus (the chosen word of the author) of economic understanding and integration. in the book, an example of a running club was mentioned, where ppl of different running capabilities r placed together n investigated as to whether they will end up running as a pack. in many of the extreme cases, synchrony never happens, but as greater coherence amongst the runners is increased, a sudden asymptotic synchrony occurs. my point being, our nations r much like the diverse grp of runners, each with a different objective n rate of growth. no doubt laws of comparative adv may guarantee gains from international trade n specialization, it remains a issue of how much we r willing to compromise to achieve the synchrony of globalism. it is, ultimately, a state of unstable equilibrium. so back to the qn, is there something larger than globalism? it appears tt nothing practical can seem larger than globalization -  it in itself a fine balance of economic incentives n disincentives, political popularity n social change. we cannot seem to merge ppl on any ideology.

Some smart aleck shld come along n raise the qn: wad abt “Earthism” – environmentalism? perhaps. yet perhaps its just a projection of globalism on a different scale.

There was once the Renaissance, the Industrial Revolution, the Silicon Age n the Internet. and there was Globalization n Globalism. perhaps there really is something bigger out there.

bah…    77/44.

Grah…

I was intending to create a post when i went back to spore. but laziness and my happy old friend procrastination paid a visit. anyways, a movie n some random talk with an air stewardess prompted me to at least get this post up n going asap. A single flight thru a number of destinations.

Anyways, i decided post arriving back in spore tt im going to write abt the flight back. apparently a huge delay was in motion. the previous plane has been grounded (not sure whether its the airbus or the lau pok 747 – which ppl still really like) n all the passengers were being shifted up onto mine. today, or rather ytd, our plane made yet another magnificent delay (presumably a technical prob). midway thru the flight the captain announced abt shutting down the inflight entertainment to troubleshoot. well well.

Enough of the ranting n back to the issue. this is not quite wad u might expect from a merely year old fleet of airbus a380. r we overworking our planes?

All arnd the globe, ppl r talking abt streamlining. as planes r generally streamline-shaped (bad joke ><), this could only mean chopping flights off from the fleet. a recent report was talking abt the airplane graveyard in the middle of the desert. apparently (or perhaps not) few ppl do actually noe where the sq planes r parked. anyways is this grounding of planes merely a sign of streamlining, or a real issue of passenger counts? on the other hand, could it b tt such streamlining is causing an overworking of the planes? a pretty famous plane incident (if u do watch air crash investigations on nat geo) talked abt the overflying of a feeder plane to hawaii. eventually, metal fatigue caused the fuselage to peel off the plane midway thru the flight.

On a less serious note, the first to take its toll in today’s multimedia work, is perhaps the electronics (not the flight controls tt kind of electronics) – the in-flight entertainment system. in fact, this really isnt the first case of the in-flight system creating probs. on my first flight to uk, a heard from a friend tt her flight had a massive breakdown in quite a number of these entertainment systems. on ytd’s flight, the captain claimed tt it was an overheating n tt the system had to b troubleshooted. but is this really an issue of overworking? i approached an engineer whos also to cam tt night. he claims tt the huge system used to maintain these many many high bandwidth systems must certainly come under a lot of stress, n would thus b likely to overheat. hm. so its a matter of capacity, is it?

Is this an issue of whether the mega-big-jumbo remains practical, or is this an issue of “engineering”? engineering is almost always abt pursuing the largest, biggest, etc… or at least portrayed in nat geo. yet, the new age of nanotechnology has changed this culture into one tt pursues the minute. econs also talk abt the diminishing marginal returns from oversizing. even macs has withdrawn its supersize option (some argue because of the supersize me documentary). the current economic situation will most prob put a cap on how large things can get within the next few yrs.

But perhaps this is a prob abt commercial engineering and abt the principles of engineering… a friend once commented to me tt electronic items these days barely ever outlive their warranties by half a yr. is this spirit of engineering equally imparted, unfortunately, to the airbus? perhaps not quite either. the airbus was said to b environmental in terms of its energy efficiency. but is tt merely an economic incentive or a sticking thru of principles? in contrast, wad r the principles of engineering? to merely build the biggest fastest, or to make profits? do issues like durability n safety still remain in todays engineering?

Anyways, as a complete side note, i watched the animation movie Bolt on the plane. ok~ the dog is bloody cute. but aside. it does remind me of platos cave. for those who dont noe the storyline, heres a general description… the dog (bolt) is involved in acting in some action movie, in which the dog has superdog powers. but the director, in order to obtain incredibly lifelike n real shots of the dog has deceived the dog from young tt it possessed actual powers. ie. bolt thinks he HAS powers. eventually, bolt gets out of the studio n discovers the real world. (n the rest of the story begins) I was like hm. tt felt completely platos cave. i recalled some strange snippet of conversation i caught from this guy doing philo somewhere. somehow he was talking abt objective realities or rather the non-existence of objective realities. he claims tt realities r wad we make of our observation. tt even the reality there exist to each individual is different across individuals. in contrast, is it then pointless to attempt to escape reality? or even more extreme, to fabricate an ideal (to urself) reality to live in? can we possibly manage to delude ourselves sufficiently to create “realities”? or r we in fact already living in tt reality somehow? tt “reality” of considerable peace (or disorder, whichever u view)

In any case, i manage to chuck these realities aside n finished the movie, very much completing the flight and this tour of various ideas.

bah…    77/44.

hm...

I have always wondered abt the expression "as if/like/as though ... has met an old friend".

A friend of mine came down to cam, not to visit me, but to visit fish. alas. anyways, i didnt really noe who it was in the 1st place n having serendipitously asked abt this mystery person did i realize it was an OLD friend of mine. few still remembered the time when dssq was aka big bird n yanlong was aka cutie-pie. (tt came as a shock to fish, but anyways, tt was besides the pt.)

But inadvertently we came to the pt abt contact. i wasnt on his list of stop-overs n neither did i noe abt his visiting plans. (n to think tt we were best friends for 6 yrs is pretty surprising... but anyways) i asked abt how many of our primary sch classmates did we remain in contact with. of course, some fortunately (or otherwise) ended up in the same course as he did in ns (n some in mine, like nigel koh).

N of course, the all of all topic: did u add so n so on facebook? alas. For some reason or another, this reminded me of some long time gp discussion. (n so i must fulfill this memory n pen/qwerty it down here)

Facebook is perhaps another interesting product of technology (communication tech in particular). while we may now remain in tune with ur friends' activities n daily lives (n send msgs n chat n write on wall n do funny stuff like super poke or facebook rape), we run into 2 classes of friends, who dont quite fit in. one, the bunch of ppl u add n whom u have no idea who they r n neither do u talk to them and ,two, the bunch of ppl whom u used to noe n have added them but have never spoken to them online wadsoever. (how many ppl do u actually talk to? this does sound like every1 on the list alr ><)

Perhaps tech gives us greater ability to communicate, but it impairs a natural desire to interact. perhaps this avenue for communications makes us unable to cherish the opportunity to interact with others. communicating across distance becomes common n there is always tt possibility tt u could contact some1 if necessary. but then again, wads necessary? n after some time, it becomes a sort of procastinating shelving back of plans to meetup.

Perhaps some friends demand more attention than being simply an icon on ur list of facebook friends.

N so the friend of mine left cam n went back to spore n back into the army n celebrated his bday (which i only discovered on, ironically, facebook).

Meanwhile, back in cam, another friend comes into the picture. i went with her for a strange talk, which was supposedly a religious/current affairs discussion but degraded (or otherwise if u wish to view so) into the latter. tt was completely contrary to my expectations, but anyways, tts also besides the pt. but the contents of the talk was interesting, so i thout it deserved some mention...

The topic was on the morality of capital markets - a mixture of a questioning of wad caused the current credit crisis n a brainstorming of the possibility of building a moral capital market after this crisis (is this possible at all? r capital markets moral or amoral?) there was a total of 5 speakers, each from different bgs. the first (a director) espoused on the core prob of human nature - greed, imprudence, hao yi wu lao (cant find a better phrase ><) - n how regulation was the way to go. the second (an economist) argued abt the inherent macro probs of the economic structure n how fiscal stimulus n regulation is the way to proceed. the third (a preacher - alas the religious...) proposed a return to classical virtues (which is in some sense a combating of human nature depending on which view-point u come from - in any case, its somewad linked to the 1st guys) n the removal of financial instruments tt have any sort of grey areas of morality associated with them. the fourth (social entrepreneur) rejects the notion tt the past/pre-crisis shld b restored (or tt ppl reminisce abt the past) n calls for greater creativity, investment n community-orientation in social enterprises. the fifth (social entrepreneur2) champions a method of social accounting but regrets tt the capital market essentially decides the fate of social enterprises.

In conclusion, we have the few basic (not really...) qns:
1. Are capital markets moral or amoral?
2. How do we decide between regulation vs self-regulation, accountability vs responsibility?
3. Are social enterprises viable at all? Or more cynically, wads the pt of social enterprises anyway? (as suggested by my friend)

1. The chair of the discussion attempted to sway the discussion by suggesting tt we may have to consider the outcomes of the decisions made by capital markets as being moral or amoral. of course, we could reject this n say tt investment is blind. but it seems tt the very act of choosing to invest in something rather than the other generates some externalities, b it social or environmental. some might suggest tt a counter-example is green technology. the influx of capital into such a "socially positive" industry might simply attributed to its anticipated rise as a result of burgeoning global demand (n shrinking supplies), ie the anticipated returns r high. but intended or unintended, the effect of the investment remains. the speakers mentioned an example of accidental manslaughter as an analogy.

2. Hm... i have no idea how to ans this actually. to my huge disappointment, the speakers never did actually battled face to face with this beast. some have merely said tt regulation is required, while others say its a matter of self-control. personally, i suggest tt effective regulation exists but we cannot count on it to b sufficient. it is somewad a cycle of regulation. a crisis occurs n greater regulation is called for; a period of relative peace n hubris sets in. the qn can also b phrased as how much can we trust ourselves to self-regulate.

3. This reminds me of the econs a lvl essay, but anyways. we may tweak the definitions of viability to include a long-term survival n growth rather than out-competing rival firms. we might b able to argue tt in the long-term social enterprises can survive. the speakers do mention of how capitalizing on new strategies have allowed some social enterprises to succeed, ie. perform as well, if not better than others. another possibility would b getting non-social enterprise firms to engage in some social accounting (as suggested by the speaker). but this could very much b a return to the bottom-line (or single bottom-line model for those jargon-junkies) during times of crisis. a number of commentaries on the web have also mentioned tt this is actually observed in today's economic crisis.

So? im setting the stage for some discussion here...

As an update, i will b back in spore after 17 mar.

bah... 77/44.

Current Mood: free
Current Music: kissgdbye

bleet... sleet...

Snow turned to sleet as the megalomaniac weather system passes. term passes and time passes. i have always been pretty amazed by snow. of course, the lack of experience brings abt greater awe, but its not an equator thing. as the snow fell for the 2nd day, a massive gathering was spontaneously formed outside the master's lodge (without the master arnd of course) and a snowball fight transpired. n moods still werent dampened when the porters came to kick the party.

But as the snow fell for fourth day, a somewad irksome feeling developed. ice covered pavements, slushy bridges (which u can go up n not come down properly). still, a mega huge snowman was constructed along the path to my room and not far beyond, an igloo.



There was a considerable buzz within and outside of college with regards to the igloo. on my trip to addenbrookes (the hospital @ cambridge), the taxi driver asked abt the college i was in n i told him i was in fitz. immediately, he mentioned abt hearing the igloo. well, im impressed, i said. i thought it was simply a fitz thing.

Sometimes i ponder abt the phrase "survive the snow". On the day of the first snowfall, i was visiting a couple of friends who came down with flu. ok. nothing much. it was only flu. i didnt come down with flu myself.

As the snow passed and the days grew warmer, the snowman started to take a bow to front and the igloo presented a tribute to the leaning tower of pisa. of course, the stuck-up engineers (like fish. no menace ><) might argue tt the construction of the snowman/igloo was flawed. but the inevitable remained hovering over the horizon. fish mentioned to me abt the bridge project n how he had to test it to destruction. shld i give any pity to his bridge? perhaps those who aimed to start out on the snowman/igloo themselves knew that destruction was eventual. no one set off to save the snowman nor the igloo. their presence was simply a transient thing.

i got off my taxi @ addenbrookes n trudge up to the fifth floor. some bits of waiting n i managed to get to his ward. i gave him a bunch of oranges and poured him a glass of water. he wasnt in gd shape. he tried to open the cup of jelly but failed n so i offered him some help. the snow stopped for a brief reprise.

warm rain. at last, the arrival of rain finally marked the end of the snowy week. the snowman took a backbreaking crash to ground zero n the igloo crumbled to a pile of rubbles (no doubt icy rubbles). snow, which became ice, slowly melted away into brackish puddles. the ugliness of snow was in full view. on his way to lectures, my corridor-mate took a fall n was eye-balled by a kind coursemate of his. now he sits crippled in the room next door. (n is on taxi scheme - free taxi to lectures)

little bits of snow still remain. half of the snow man has melted away and the igloo remains a circular pile on the floor. my friend is abt to get discharged.

i went to lectures today. being a little early, i sat down beside one of those asian mathmos in lectures. i started by asking wheres she been to, the kind of standard opening u make talking abt not having seen tt person for while (of course, theres 250 in a lecture. sometimes, i dont even notice the fitz mathmos). she described her 2 night stint at the ICU down at addenbrookes. this was the first lecture since she was discharged. she controlled it, but i saw a flicker of grief in her eyes.

as i type now, snow has started to fall again outside my window. a gloom has set itself upon cambridge. for once i really hate the snow. really hate it.

bah... 77/44.

Current Mood: melancholy
Current Music: chenmodegaoyang

hm...

for some very odd reason, im possibly depressed. not because we just made like some 40+K losses for the game today, but tt theres something inherently wrong abt creation, as in my creation.

im perhaps starting to empathize with fathers who have sons smarter than them. to many it might b glory or fame, but theres just an inherent sourness of ego. ur creation is smarter than u r. tts not a very gd thing to start off with.

perhaps this is y movies abt robots n e whole notion abt destroying the human race etc r so popular. perhaps there is really a threat out there tt something we create might outdo us someday. perhaps there comes a pt in time when we r too concerted abt creation tt we cease to understand how things work - when the engineering progress beyond the science n the science beyond the maths tt could support it. (alas! one of the millenium problems!) can we really programme something tt is beyond ourselves, to perform fuctions tt we cannot possibly do even in polynomial time?

this brings us back to one of the greatest debates in the philosophy of maths. the four-colour prob was first solved using computational methods (rather, computational methods were just a final fixture of a repertior of largely elegant ideas). yet, a number of mathematicians frown upon this methodology as being uncomplete. proponents of the computational method claimed tt the process of checking n eliminating the final cases was actually possible by human hours (no doubt by a huge number of human hours) n thus is technically solvable, but isnt quite worth the man hours to solve. in essence, this is a way of showing tt it is possible to achieve the result (without actually going tooth n nail into doing it).

but essentially, theres still a huge hole in all of these. as yeesian quickly pts out, we really dont noe wad goes on behind the phospherous screen (nowadays, LCD; or perhaps if u were completely nitpicky abt it, the metal casing of the CPU or silicon chip). with increasing complexity of the programme, we sometimes really dont noe wad we r programming, how the results r derived, the way the computational process arrives at the ans. in some case, an unexpected systemic methodology in how computers work can destroy a proof. performing operations u expect would not b performed. the process of using programmes is also abt knowing the computation behind it.

swinging back to topic, it becomes a qn of whether or not we really possess the ability to programme something we completely dont understand, or whether its purely just a matter of being able to check thru all the required processes n methodologies. without deviating too much into the realms of misuage, we may qn if the complexity of programmes can actually exceed the human ability to check it. (for those who have done programming, u must noe how irritating debugging is) i wouldnt ans this qn. in fact, i would rather b seeking an ans to this.

in conclusion, wad has all this got to do with me? u might have guessed. i created a programme tt has outdone me. when it was supposed to have been programmed to think like me, we differed on 5 accounts. programme 4 - me 1. grah.

n so sinks the ego.

btw, as a complete sidenote, happy CNY!!! ok. (in almost a week)

bah... 77/44.

Current Location: the bubble
Current Mood: ego burst