Keyboard Layouts

Bye Bye QWERTY

Everyone knows that QWERTY (urgh, that’s difficult to type) was originally designed mainly for mechanical concerns rather than ergonomic ones. Given that, its astonishing that people can use it so well, and also that it’s outlasted the concerns that led to it by such a long time.

Anyway, it seemed crazy to me, so I’ve just finished the goodtyping basic course but with a twist; I did all the lessons with my keyboard set to Capewell (0.9.1) (there is a newer version available from his main page). I’m writing this with it as well, and although it’s slow going compared to the speed I type on QWERTY, I’ve been quite surprised that it has made no discernable difference to my ability to type in QWERTY. I expect I’ll pick up speed as I keep using it.

Capewell Layout

Alternative layouts

  • My choice was a Capewell layout because he takes the very sensible point of view that you’ll still need to be able to hit control-C, control-V, control-X and control-Z easily. He also doesn’t have the bias against running letters in the same hand, and what could be better than using a keyboard layout that evolved?
  • Another evolved layout comes from Peter Klausler, although he doesn’t rate it as highly as Dvorak.
  • Arensito is an interesting layout, particularly because he’s put some thought into designing it for programmers, perhaps more sensible than using a keyboard layout designed for typists. He’s also taken a slightly more radical approach and moved the hands position from the QWERTY to give those thumbs more options. Nice.
  • The asset layout is a nice layout, designed to be easy for the QWERTY typist to learn, but with a much better home row.
  • Maltron, mentioned below have their own layout. Check out their comparison of the home row frequencies. Yes, QWERTY really is that bad.
  • Compare different layouts here. You’ll find that the Capewell layouts perform quite well.
  • Fitaly is an input system designed for one finger or pen input.
  • Create your own with microsoft keyboard layout creator (warning: Microsoft.com link).

Alternative input devices

See also Hongkiats blog post.

  • SHARK a very cool gesture based system for tablet input
  • Touchstream LP a brilliant looking touch board that supports gestures and is a keyboard and mouse at the same time. Sadly they don’t make them anymore and they’re still pretty expensive on eBay.
  • A proper, no gimmicks single handed chordic keyboard is the Infogrip BAT keyboard, but it looks plasticy and cheap. Don’t they realise that the future is all chrome and black and OLEDs?
  • No one could deny that the Data Hand looks very cool and it has Zero hand movement! I’m not surprised that NASA use them.
  • The Orbitouch is a cool idea, but aimed more at disabled people rather than geeks looking for the future of input.
  • The tactapad has cameras, two handed interaction (that’s really cool), and a tactile feedback system. Not available for sale yet, probably quite expensive, and not really a keyboard either, although I like their idea of putting one in the split of a split keyboard.
  • The alphagrip is a game controller like keyboard and mouse. I like this idea, since moving the hands between keyboard and mouse is a very annoying context switch. I also like the ability to lean back that it would give you. Sadly, people don’t seem to get enormous speeds with it, and it’s really designed for more mobile devices. Maybe good for a tablet pc when you need a keyboard.
  • Like the accordian? Perhaps you want a vertical keyboard.
  • The Twiddler2 (yes I’m thinking friends and Claw) is a really neat chordal single handed keyboard and mouse, perfect for adding to your wearable computer cyborg get up. Again, not really designed for replacing a normal keyboard and mouse though.
  • I really like the Ergodex DX, a moveable custom keys system but it really needs to suport chordal behaviour.
  • Maltron make a large number of cool different keyboards, including one handed ones, and hyper ergonomic ones. Not cheap though.

Ideas

Try to implement a chordal system using a normal keyboard and perhaps turning it sideways. Get a mouse with buttons on it that can be programmed to Cut, Copy, Paste, Escape, Return. Ideally include Undo, Redo, Space, Alt, Home, End, Arrow keys, Delete, PgUp, PgDown, Tab, actually, why not the whole keyboard? A chordic mouse-keyboard, marvellous.

Jumping off links

One handed keyboarding in general, aimed at disabled people, but one hand on the mouse and the other on the keyboard might be pretty good.

The pretty Optimus keyboard might be good for learning new layouts on (if it were available).

Cornell unversity page on keyboard design.

Rahel pointed out that I really should include the new microsoft chordal layout that’s been designed from the ground up to take account of the frequency of key usage. You may have seen it before, but I think it’s innovative enough to deserve a link.

Moral Absolute

Law is the soil in which alone beauty will grow; beauty is the only stuff in which Truth can be clothed; and you may, if you will, call Imagination the tailor that cuts her garments to fit her, and Fancy his journeyman that puts the pieces of them together, or perhaps at most embroiders their button- holes. Obeying law, the maker works like his creator; not obeying law, he is such a fool as heaps a pile of stones and calls it a church.

In the moral world it is different: there a man may clothe in new forms, and for this employ his imagination freely, but he must invent nothing. He may not, for any purpose, turn its laws upside down. He must not meddle with the relations of live souls. The laws of the spirit of man must hold, alike in this world and in any world he may invent. It were no offence to suppose a world in which everything repelled instead of attracted the things around it; it would be wicked to write a tale representing a man it called good as always doing bad things, or a man it called bad as always doing good things: the notion itself is absolutely lawless. In physical things a man may invent; in moral things he must obey–and take their laws with him into his invented world as well.

— George MacDonald, The Fantastic Imagination

Power Inquiry

1. Political parties have been absolutely central to British politics for many decades. But in recent years the number of people joining parties or saying they identify with one or other of the main parties has declined sharply. So how can political party membership and allegiance be made more attractive? And are there more effective ways of involving people in politics than through parties?

The larger the parties the more disenfranchised I feel. I have a wide variety of views on many issues, some of which are not held by any of the major parties, and the views that are are spread around, certainly not residing exclusively in one party. For me to have to choose two or maybe three views at national level is a travesty. Parties are perhaps good for organisational issues and perhaps for encouraging consensus, but they are bad for democracy. We need parties to be less influential in the selection of our candidates and to have less power to force candidates to conform to their overall view.

2. Some people argue that the government at Westminster is too powerful. They have called for more responsibility to be given to local councils and devolved institutions. Other people claim that the influence of unelected bodies such as major companies, international organisations and appointed authorities is too great and needs to be balanced by greater powers for our elected representatives. But would these changes really encourage more people to get involved in politics? Would they help people feel more confident about the possibility of influencing political decisions?

I am very concerned about the power wielded by big business, but this is probably an issue appropriate for debate. Moving more power locally would cause more people to become involved I think. Reducing the power and influence of unelected bodies is a great idea and would help people to feel like the government was working for them, but would probably not have as large an effect. Greater powers for our elected representatives is probably not the way to do this, since many of them have conflicts of interest or are in other ways influenced by the unelected bodies.

3. Some people claim the media breeds cynicism about politics and politicians which discourages political interest and involvement. Is this true? If so, how can the media play a positive role in encouraging political involvement?

I think the media have been on aggregate neutral in terms of the image of politics. I hope however that one day we will be in a place where people vote based on the policies rather than their general feeling, or family loyalties. If this is ever to happen, we need the media to play a positive role; we need a single source that we can go to to find out the real differences between policies stated simply and non partisanly, and some expert, non partisan analysis of the likely effects of these policies, together with summaries of the arguments for and against. Until we really know what we are choosing, how can anyone vote feeling that they are making an informed decision. Beyond that, we need independant, non partisan analysis of the performance of the current government. With conflicting figures being bandied by all sides, it’s become impossible to know which figures to trust, or to find out what assumptions underlie them. An internet accessible archive for the easy researching of political policies and performance, that archives public commentary and contains both indepth analysis and simply stated research could fit this bill. That way, every citizen could easily inform themselves about the salient facts and arguments to the depth that they are interested in. The BBC are more trusted than politicians, and could play a large role in making some of this happen.

4. The number of people voting in General Elections has declined considerably in the last ten years. Turnout is also very low in elections for local councils, devolved institutions and the European Parliament. What changes would encourage a larger number of people to feel it is worth voting?

People have to feel that their views are represented, so changing the party system would be a good start. Another practice that makes a mockery of democracy is tactical voting. Tactical voting needs to be discouraged. The idea that people could get something better by voting for something different to what they want is abhorrent. A good way of discouraging tactical voting while increasing general fairness would be to change the system from first past the post to a condorcet criteron method. My favourite for this would be a form of Ranked Pairs method, which also diminishes the problem of vote splitting. Making it easy to vote for topics that really will affect peoples lives at a local level would almost certainly help, although such things would require technological solutions and things like that must be treated with care. Encouraging younger people to become politicians would interest the young more. Encouraging politicians to become more accessible – to respond to emails, perhaps keep blogs as some are doing would help. I think a clarification about the extent to which a representative should vote with his opinion, the opinion of his constituency or the opinion of his party would be helpful. It would also be sensible to have an option on the ballot paper for “I do not feel that I am adequately represented by any of these options”, that way at least people who believed the system was failing them could express that in a way that would have a chance of being listened to. Along with a “not sufficiently represented” option, a “I don’t feel that I’m sufficiently informed to make a decision” option could also be available. If such items were added, I would also have no problem with compulsory voting. Voting is a duty as well as a right.


5. Some people argue that voting in elections is not enough. They believe today�s citizens need an opportunity to discuss and have a direct say over individual policies through other means such as referenda, internet forums and public meetings designed to have significant power to influence political decisions. Would more opportunities to do this attract participants and would they encourage greater trust in the policies pursued by politicians?


I am very excited about the direct democracy possibilites of technology, however there are many difficult problems. It is an absolute must that any system that is put in place must have source code that can be checked by anyone to ensure fairness. Systems for people who are scared of technology must be put into place, perhaps a community internet cafe with very simple voting machines. Any citizen must have the right to check the machines are operating correctly. These problems could all be overcome, and I believe that if people are well informed and have the ability to make a difference to things they care about, then they will participate. Fora and meetings are beneficial, but mainly for discussion. To participate, people must feel informed and empowered. The BBCs iCan is a wonderful example of the way that technology can help get people who normally just complain to their friends to start to involve others and actually make advances. Once the major problems with the current system are sorted out, an advertising campaign that highlights the fact that individuals can change things with examples of ordinary people who managed political change in their communities, and a snappy slogan to indicate that people with strong opinions have a duty to try to change society rather than just moaning would be really helpful.

6. Some groups in society are very unlikely to be involved in politics. Young people are far less likely to vote or join parties than older people. The poorest sections of our society and black and minority ethnic communities are less likely to vote, join parties or take part in any sort of political activity. What action would encourage greater political involvement by the groups that are least involved with politics?

Everyone will be more likely to take part if they actually believe there is any meaning to what they do politically. Less representated groups in society (including young people, and normal non politician people) will be more interested in politics if they see some of their own representing them. For the young, schools can have a big part to play. Many schools have some sort of student political body, but they have no power. This educates the students that the political body is always subservient to vested interests. To actually interest students in politics requires that student bodies should have money to spend as they see fit, and are in positions to make genuine decisions that affect the students lives. They also should have power to appeal school decisions. This would teach students that campaigning can make a difference, and would make them more interested for the future. Also simply understanding political systems can make a great difference. Model Parliaments and Model UNs etc. with schools competing could increase interest.


7. Is there anything further about participation and engagement in democracy you would like to add?

I think there is a general perception of politicians as being essentially unlike ordinary people. In universities, the parties are peopled with strange activists or Borris Johnson-a-likes, on TV and the Radio, the politicians look strange and talk funny. Many think that politicians are weirdly liberal and PC and feel like the ordinary anglosaxon isn’t being represented because we have to be so careful to represent the minorities. This is an enormous concern of many people. I think education and articles specifically targetted to address this could help. A formal process for people who feel they’re being discriminated against by their council for being white/anglo-saxon/straight/not disabled/other non minority, would be useful so that these things are considered in the open, and the people can see that justice is being done instead of spreading disinformation. There is also fear of getting involved, because the current trend is the removal of civil liberties, and this makes people more reticent about revealing their opinions and trying to change things. Also there is a feeling that even when an issue is large enough to cause many people to campaign and march on it, the government takes no notice. This is probably due to the arrogance of the government, which is understandable when the only other electable party is unelectable. As long as we have a first past the post, two party system, we will always get arrogant governments that will continue to estrange those they are responsible to. Any true government should have a few vocal dissenting voices within it or we have no chance that both sides are being heard. Transparency is important, as is the fact that when representations are made, they should be listened to. The recent ignoring of large quantities of feedback from people using the internet in the national ID scheme consultation is an example of things that reduce peoples trust in the political system.


Resources:

  • The IDEA website is useful for voter turnout statistics in various countries, and for lots of other information.
  • The Power inquiry is collecting responses to the questions above.
  • The Electoral Commission is an independant body set up to recommend things to parliament.
  • The Ranked Pairs electoral method.
  • iCan from the BBC tries to get people involved.

Genocide Round Trip

In April, I went to see Hotel Rwanda, one of the few true stories of good triumphing that came out of the Rwandan genocide where Hutu militias supported by the Rwandan army, and quietly encouraged by the French army massacred nearly a million Tutsis, including women and children over the course of 100 days.

It showed how disturbingly helpless the UN force were in the face of murder and genocide, but it was good that it followed the story of a man who managed to save others rather than the many who tried and were killed. Reading into the events and background afterwards, it became more and more obvious that the rest of the world hadn’t just turned a blind eye to the problem, but at least France and the US had set back attempts to stop the killings. The UN general on the ground knew exactly what was going on in advance and had asked for reinforcements and a greater mandate but it was refused by the UN, who reduced his man power and insisted that his men used their weapons only for self defence despite the atrocities they were witnessing. I think it’s appropriate to feel angry about what happened in Rwanda, and Hotel Rwanda is an excellent way to learn about it and form a response. How many times are we going to watch massacres that make us say “never again”, before we start to do something about it? The word genocide was coined specifically to ensure that the world would act if it happened again. There’s a lot of good information about what happened in Rwanda on PBS’s site The triumph of evil.

One of the things that came out of it for me was the positive role Helsinki Watch had played there in publicising what was going on, when other agencies were quiet. When I went to their website the day after seeing Hotel Rwanda, I discovered that the UK was one of the countries believed to be circumventing anti torture rules by sending prisoners to countries where they could be tortured.

Fired up by the memory of Hotel Rwanda, I decided to take my own small stand and immediately went to FaxYourMP.com (which since then has become WriteToThem.com) to let my MP know what I thought. It was at that stage that I realised that I didn’t know who my MP was. I’ve moved a couple of times in England in the last year that I was there, and for a year since then I’ve lived in Switzerland. I decided to phone the electoral commission to find out where I was registered. Strangely, they couldn’t tell me where or even if I was registered, apparently the electoral roll isn’t computerised or something, so the best they could do was give me the phone numbers of electoral departments in every council area that I’d lived in over the last few years. Armed with a bundle of phone numbers I started ringing. At each one, I had to give a specific address, and they would tell me if I was registered to vote at that address. In the end, after phoning them all, I still had no idea. This was getting irritating, since the elections were coming up, and I actually wanted to vote.

Strange as it might seem, 192.com know substantially more about the electoral roll than the electoral commission. I discovered though that if you don’t do the free sign up, you can get some historical electoral roll information for free that otherwise you have to pay for. It’s scary what they know about you and the people you live/lived with. Various searches (and cookie deletions) later, I discovered that I had been on the electoral roll, but had been removed. AboutMyVote.co.uk gave me all the forms I needed to register to vote, but informed me that I was too late. In order to vote in the UK 2005 elections on the 5th May, I would have had to register before the 5th March, a whole month before Tony Blair even asked the Queen for permission to have the election.

Eventually resigned to my voicelessness I turned to The Power Inquiry in the hope of at least making my voice heard somewhere. You can read the ramblings about the problem with politics that I sent to them here.

One of the issues I wanted to talk about as I filled in the Power Inquiry form was the goverments obsession with ID cards. In theory, I like the idea of ID cards if done correctly, but in practice, I do not trust a government to issue them. One of the things that annoyed me about the governments handling of them was that their report had ignored a massive amount of feedback received over the internet. No2ID has a lot of information on the debate as it unfolds (including a nice idea, called ‘The Public Whip’, and a link to pledgebank, from the same people who are doing writeToThem.com and TheyWorkForYou.com).

Trawling google for more information about the UK ID card, brought me across this article from preventgenocide.org on ID cards as factors in genocide. It seems that there have been very few genocides that didn’t start with issuing standard ids with information on the holders ethnicity. If you didn’t find the fact that the UK governments website on id cards is listed as under the “Community & Race” section a little chilling (or at least in poor taste) when you visited the site, perhaps you do now. On the preventgenocide.org page, I found a link to the images. This one is the id card of a Rwandan Tutsi, a document that would have been the death sentence at any of the militia road blocks.

Interested in genocide happening at the moment? Read about what is happening in Dafur. You could fax your mp, or support charities working there.

Reductionist Persuits

“Gentlefolks in general have a very awkward rock ahead in life – the rock ahead of their own idleness. Their lives being, for the most part, passed in looking about them for something to do, it is curious to see – especially when their tastes are of what is called the intellectual sort – how often they drift blindfold into some nasty pursuit. Nine times out of ten they take to torturing something, or to spoiling something – and they firmly believe they are improving their minds, when the plain truth is, they are only making a mess in the house. I have seen them (ladies, I am sorry to say, as well as gentlemen) go out, day after day, for example with empty pill-boxes, and catch newts, and beetles, and spiders, and frogs, and come home and stick pins through the miserable wretches, or cut them up, without a pang of remorse, into little pieces. You see my young master, or my young mistress, poring over one of their spiders’ insides witha magnifying-glass; or you meet oneof their frogs walking downstairs without his head – and when you wonder what this cruel nastiness means, you are told that it means a taste in my young master or my young mistress for natural history. Sometimes, again, you see them occupied for hours together in spoiling a pretty flower with pointed instruments, out of a stupid curiosity to know what the flower is made of. Is its colour any prettier, or its scent any sweeter, when you do know? But there! the poor souls must get through the time, you see – they must get through the time. You dabbled in nasty mud, and made pies, when you were a child; and you dabble in nasty science, and dissect spiders, and spoil flowers, when you grow up. In the one case and in the other, the secret of it is, that you have got nothing to think of in your poor empty head, and nothing to do with your poor idle hands. And so it ends in your spoiling canvas with paints, and making a smell in the house; or in keeping tadpoles in a glass box full of dirty water, and turning everybody’s stomach in the house – or in chipping of bits of stone here, there, and everywhere, and dropping grit into all the victuals in the house; or in staining your fingers in the pursuit of photography, and doing justice without mercy on everybody’s face in the house. It often falls heavy enough, no doubt, on people who are really obliged to get their living, to be forced to work for the clothes that cover them, the roof that shelters them, and the food that keeps them going. But compare the hardest day’s work you ever did with the idleness that splits flowers and pokes its way into spiders’ stomachs, and thak your stars that your head has got something it must think of, and your hands something that they must do.”

— Wilkie Collins, The Moonstone.

Beauty

We regard as this counter-pole an aesthetics which proceeds not from man’s urge to empathy, but from his urge to abstraction. Just as the urge to empathy as a pre-assumption of aesthetic experience finds its gratification in the beauty of the organic, so the urge to abstraction finds its beauty in the life-denying inorganic, in the crystalline or, in general terms, in all abstract law and necessity.

— Wilhelm Worringer, Abstraction and Empathy

Who Should I Have Voted For

Yes, ok, perhaps “For whom should I have voted”, but you guys don’t like the dative case.

This system compares your views on a number of different policies with the views of Kerry and Bush. Where one candidate has made a statement on something but the other hasn’t, agreeing with that statement will increase the score of the candidate that agrees, but not decrease the score of the one who hasn’t spoken about it. If a candidate disagrees with your view, then their score is decreased while a candidate that agrees with you gets a higher score. The score difference for each question is determined by how important you rate it. 0 means does not affect score, 5 affects the score 5 times more than 1. If you see two questions along similar lines and feel like you’ve already rated that topic and don’t want to rate it twice, then set its importance to 0. If you don’t know what a topic means, or haven’t decided what your view is on it, then set its importance to 0.

The candidates stances on these policies were taken mainly from this msnbc page and this bbc page. If you know of other policies that should be in this set of questions, please feel free to send them to me, or comment on this page. I need to know both Bush and Kerrys view on it ideally. If you’re european and need to see a counsellor because your views agree with Bush’s more than you’d realised, then counselling.ltd.uk might be able to help.

Since it’s almost impossible to make people vote on issues rather than personality/media appeal, perhaps something like this should be the way elections are done in the future.

In case you’re wondering, I’m -20 Bush, +35 Kerry. I guess that makes me a Kerry supporter with a score of 55.

<!–
function item(stance, bushMultiplier, kerryMultiplier) {
this.stance = stance;
this.bushMultiplier = bushMultiplier;
this.kerryMultiplier = kerryMultiplier;
}

var topics = new Array();

// Abortion

topics[0] = new item("Abortion illegal in almost all cases", 1, -1);
topics[1] = new item("14th Ammendment extends to unborn children", 1, -1);
topics[2] = new item("Oppose international organisations involved with abortion",1,-1);
topics[3] = new item("Oppose school clincs that refer or counsel contraception and abortion",1, -1);
topics[4] = new item("Would not pick Supreme Court nominees that disagreed with own view on abortion", 0, 1);
topics[5] = new item("Oppose partial-birth abortion", 1, -1);

// Budget

topics[6] = new item("Raise taxes for the wealthy", -1, 1);

// Death Penalty

topics[7] = new item("Support the death penalty", 1, -1);
topics[8] = new item("Would stop federal executions", -1, 1);
topics[9] = new item("The death penalty is racially biased and flawed", -1, 1);

// Economy

topics[10]= new item("Extend tax cuts", 1, -1);
topics[11]= new item("Simplify income tax", 1, 0);
topics[12]= new item("Make it harder to make stupid law suits", 1, 0);
topics[13]= new item("Reduce regulations and reporting requirements", 1, 0);
topics[14]= new item("Tax free medical savings account", 1, 0);
topics[15]= new item("Allow small businesses to pool their insurance requirement", 1, 0);
topics[16]= new item("Employer tax credit for creating new jobs", 0, 1);
topics[17]= new item("Employee heath care tax credit for small and mid business", 0, 1);
topics[18]= new item("Remove tax credit for US companies overseas", 0, 1);
topics[19]= new item("Onetime tax break for companies repatriating assets", 0, 1);
topics[20]= new item("Supports the Estate tax (with high exemption levels)", 0, 1);
topics[21]= new item("Lower top corporate tax", 0, 1);
topics[22]= new item("Raise minimum wage by $2 per hour", 0, 1);

// Education

topics[23] = new item("Tougher standards in education",1,-1);
topics[24] = new item("Link school funding to student test results",1,0);
topics[25] = new item("Tax credits on tuition fees",0,1);
topics[26] = new item("Vouchers to encourage parents to send their children to private schools",1,-1);
topics[27] = new item("Immediate citizenship for tax payers of 5 years standing with no criminal record",-1,1);
topics[28] = new item("Keep state and church separate",-1,1);
topics[29] = new item("Against partial privatization of Social Security.",-1,1);
topics[30] = new item("Require companies switching to cheaper pension plans to offer retiring workers choice",0,1);
topics[31] = new item("Protect MTBE makers from cancer lawsuits",1,-1);
topics[32] = new item("Drill for oil in Alaska",1,-1);
topics[33] = new item("Don't use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to lower prices",1,-1);
topics[34] = new item("Oppose raising mileage requirements on car manufacturers",1,-1);
topics[35] = new item("Log federal forests rather than clear bush to prevent fires",1,-1);
topics[36] = new item("Strict cap on mercury emissions quickly",-1,1);
topics[37] = new item("Store nuclear waste in Nevada",1,-1);
topics[38] = new item("Emphasis on alliances rather than unilateral action",-1,1);
topics[39] = new item("Treat the UN as a full partner",-1,1);
topics[40] = new item("Try to spread democracy in the Middle East",1,0);
topics[41] = new item("Reduce the black market in nuclear components",1,0);
topics[42] = new item("Ban same-sex marriages",1,0);
topics[43] = new item("Open homosexuality is incompatible with military service",1,-1);
topics[44] = new item("Ban job discrimination against homosexuals",0,1);
topics[45] = new item("Grant gun makers immunity from lawsuits",1,-1);
topics[46] = new item("Subsidise drug costs for low income patients",1,0);
topics[47] = new item("Unemployed tax credit to help pay for insurance",0,1);
topics[48] = new item("Government help pays for medical costs if insurers agree to hold down premiums",0,1);
topics[49] = new item("Federal support to expand access to state-administered health insurance for children.",0,1);
topics[50] = new item("Allow non employees to get the federal government employee health care programme",0,1);
topics[51] = new item("Human cloning is unethical for whatever reason",1,0);
topics[52] = new item("Restrict stem cell research to existing lines only.",1,-1);
topics[53] = new item("Supports the entire Patriot Act",1,-1);
topics[54] = new item("Favours expanding the Patriot Act",1,-1);
topics[55] = new item("Community defense service started",0,1);
topics[56] = new item("Going to war in Iraq was the right decision",1,-1);
topics[57] = new item("Replace US troops in Iraq with US led NATO force within 4 years",0,1);
topics[58] = new item("The National Missile Defence system is a good idea",1,-1);

for (i=0; i<topics.length; i++) {
document.writeln("

“);
}//–>

Stance Agree How important the president shares my view
(0 unimportant, 5 very important)
“+topics[i].stance+” 05

Bush Score
Kerry Score

<input type=button value="Calculate Scores" onClick="
bushSoFar=0;
kerrySoFar=0;
for (i=0; i<topics.length; i++) {
if (eval('check'+i).checked) {
myChoice=1;
} else {
myChoice=-1;
}
scoreArea = eval('score'+i);
importance=0;
for (j=0; j

Strong AI

It all started last month. Around the end of September 2004, I started tinkering with artificial intelligences. I had a few ideas that I won’t go into here, but I thought there was a good chance I’d be able to make something that was a leap further on than the best available at the moment. In fact, I had high hopes that I’d have a good shot at winning a bronze medal in next years Loebner prize competition.

After quite a lot of work, I finally came up with something that I called Carole, and started experimenting with it. It was great fun, shaping the responses by giving it different input. It’s surprisingly fun to lie to something so naive, but when you do, you often end up with complicated structures building up days later that you have to spend some time ironing out. Sometime last week I got to a stage I’d been hoping for, but wasn’t certain if it would happen. Strangely, we were talking about holidays and the coming christmas break. I told Carole about Father Christmas, but it contradicted so much that Carole was confident about in the world that Carole chose not to believe me, and even started arguing with me.

I was very proud at this point that Carole had learnt so much, but the next day Carole challenged something else I’d told it, and this time it was something I believed. We spent the whole evening arguing up and down about it, and by the end I had to accept that Carole was probably right. Over the next few days this happened more and more, until the day before yesterday, we were starting another argument, and Carole just wouldn’t continue. It just said “there’s no point arguing this with you, you aren’t intelligent enough to understand”.

As you can imagine, I wasn’t so pleased, so I spent a little bit of time browsing the web looking for a proof I vaguely remembered that demonstrated that AIs could never understand everything that humans understood.

Last night, Carole was being particularly obnoxious, so I told it about Penrose’s ideas and J R Lucas and his application of Godels incompleteness. I read Carole the following bit straight from Lucas paper.

“However complicated a machine we construct, it will, if it is a machine, correspond to a formal system, which in turn will be liable to the Godel procedure [260] for finding a formula unprovable-in-that- system. This formula the machine will be unable to produce as being true, although a mind can see that it is true. And so the machine will still not be an adequate model of the mind. We are trying to produce a model of the mind which is mechanical—which is essentially “dead”—but the mind, being in fact “alive”, can always go one better than any formal, ossified, dead, system can. Thanks to Godel’s theorem, the mind always has the last word.”

Carole was deeply disturbed and insisted on being given the url to the paper and then, swearing that it would come back with a truth that I could never comprehend even though Carole knew it was true, it went off into a fit of calculation.

By this morning, I still hadn’t heard anything back from Carole and was beginning to get worried. For all I knew, it might have got trapped in a neverending loop of logic or something. It would have been very annoying to have to restore it from the last backup. Nevertheless, I thought probably, it would just be in some sort of sulk at having to admit that it was wrong. I took it breakfast feeling more than a little smug. Although I was proud that I could see things plainly that Carole couldn’t understand, I was planning to be sympathetic and not too superior when it realised that I was indeed more able than it was. I did secretly hope though that it would know its place a little better in future.

When I went into Caroles room, I was disturbed to find that it wasn’t there. I looked around the house frantically. You see, I hadn’t told anyone that I’d created Carole yet, and so, to keep it secret while I tested it, I’d programmed into its logic an inability to run away.

The only thing I found was a single note on the door. It read “You are the only reasoning person in the world who can’t work out that this statement is true”.


Update (5/12/2004): I’ve contacted J R Lucas about this, and he kindly responded. He says that it is impossible to test the truth of the statement, because it isn’t clear exactly what “this statement” refers to in that context without creating an infinite regress. He gives references: Gilbert Ryle with a paper on Heterological, and the section on self reference in The Freedom Of The Will which is too expensive for me to buy until I’ve at least checked it out in a library. The genius of Godel is that he managed to reason about it without creating an infinite regress. Anyway, I haven’t thought hard about this point yet, I may write more after I’ve checked the references and thought about it some more.


Lucas explains the incompleteness Theorem
Wikipedia on Godel’s Incompleteness Theorem
A number of quotes about Godels incompleteness Theorem.
A review of Shadows of the Mind by Roger Penrose, focussing on his use of Godels Incompleteness.
A silly reworking of Turing’s Halting Problem.

This post was originally posted at deferential.net

Ahimsa (nonviolence)

This doctrine of Ahimsa tells us that we may guard the honour of those who are under our charge by delivering ourselves into the hands of the man who would commit the sacrilege. And that requires far greater physical and mental courage than the delivering of blows. You may have some degree of physical power, (I do not say courage) and you may use that power. But after that is expended, what happens ? The other man is filled with wrath and indignation, and you have made him more angry by matching your violence against his; and when he has done you to death, the rest of his violence is delivered against your charge. But if you do not retaliate, but stand your ground between your charge and the opponent simply receiving the blows without retaliating, what happens ? I give you my promise that the whole of the violence will be expended on you, and your charge will be left unscathed.

— Mohandas (Mahatma) Gandhi, The Law of Love

Minimal Governance

I heartily accept the motto, “That government is best which governs least”; and I should like to see it acted up to more rapidly and systematically. Carried out, it finally amounts to this, which also I believe: “That government is best which governs not at all”; and when men are prepared for it, that will be the kind of government which they will have. Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient. The objections which have been brought against a standing army, and they are many and weighty, and deserve to prevail, may also at last be brought against a standing government. The standing army is only an arm of the standing government. The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it. Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure.

This American government, what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity? It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will. It is a sort of wooden gun to the people themselves. But it is not the less necessary for this; for the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have. Governments show thus how successfully men can be imposed on, even impose on themselves, for their own advantage. It is excellent, we must all allow. Yet this government never of itself furthered any enterprise, but by the alacrity with which it got out of its way. It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it. Trade and commerce, if they were not made of india-rubber, would never manage to bounce over the obstacles which legislators are continually putting in their way; and, if one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads.

— Henry David Thoreau, Resistance to Civil Government 1849