|
|||
|
I just finished Isaac Asimov's Asimov Laughs Again, an occasionally amusing book that somehow remains a page-turner even during the relatively unenjoyable parts. The book is mostly a stream-of-consciousness transcribed by Asimov, remembering jokes, anecdotes, and limericks. But I was exceptionally annoyed that he misquotes Samuel Johnson in entry 586. Johnson is informed that one of the words in his dictionary is defined incorrectly, and is asked to explain the reasoning behind his mis-definition. Asimov quotes Johnson as saying "Ignorance. Simple ignorance, sir." Assuming that he was quoting from Boswell (a very reasonable assumption) I remember the quotation as "Ignorance, madam. Simple [or sheer?] ignorance." Petty distinction? Perhaps. But Asimov is a reknowned science writer, and a science writer does not simply repeat from memory. And how long would it have taken him to look this up? Hmmm ... how long indeed? I have a stopwatch function on my wristwatch; I will turn it on, fetch my Life of Johnson from another room, and attempt to find the reference. I sincerely doubt if I will be able to accomplish this any faster than Asimov would have. We will also see whether I am right or wrong in calling his memory into question. OK, here goes ... ... and the answer is one minute, fifty-six seconds. My memory was erroneous as well: the quote is "Ignorance, Madam, pure ignorance." [If you think it would have been faster for me to search online, you are right. I just checked: it took 34 seconds, and this is without searching on the corrected text that I just presented. But Asimov would not have had this at his disposal for his 1993 book.] Does Asimov so separate the realms of his science writing and his humor/historical writing that he sees one as requiring scholarship and one not? Or is he perhaps being devilishly clever, courting exactly this reproach? "Why did I misquote Johnson? Ignorance. Simple ignorance, sir." Hello, boys and girls, your lesson for the day is not to cut wedges of slimy, three-week-old gorgonzola towards your finger with a very sharp knife. I have just been watching Carlton Television's Police, Camera, Action which TLC is kind enough to air for us on U.S. cable. There were two episodes this evening which (truth be told) I have been looking forward to all weekend. For me, this program is far more pleasurable than other programs of its kind. For one thing, I greatly enjoy the host Alastair Stewart and his presentation of the material. For another, I have never seen them show any footage in which someone (or animal) was killed or seriously injured; it's a safety net of civility one does not usually get in U.S. shows of this sort. I also enjoy the reminiscence of seeing British roads. I am usually embarassed when footage is shown from the U.S. The criminals seem more violent, the police always approach with sidearms drawn, and the police commentary seems far more volatile. But the nonviolent "culture shocks" are fascinating to watch. For instance, in this past episode Mr. Stewart was discussing Madrid's "ingenious" use of a "high occupancy vehicle lane", a highway lane that may be used only by buses and by cars carrying at least one passenger. For someone living in California who takes our "carpool lanes" for granted, greeting this concept as a novel idea is a bit surprising. As another amusing cultural difference, this past episode showed footage from a Los Angeles suburb of "a known drug dealer" running from police. Apparently as a nose-thumbing, the driver decides to target trash cans that had been set streetside for weekly pickup, ramming them with the front of the car. Mr. Stewart narrates that the driver "decides to have some fun by crashing into the roadside dust bins." I am not sure it would be possible to explain to Mr. Stewart just why this interpretation of events sounds so cute; one element is certainly the lack of understanding that the assorted bins (some metal, some plastic, some wheeled, some not) were the possession of the homeowners. The second more striking element is the naîve belief that a Los Angeles suburb would bother to provide municipal trash cans on residential streets.... One thing that insomnia does give one is time to read. The insomnia is partly my frustrating occasional insomnia, and partly the pain in my left kidney that I suspect is another stone. I missed work on Thursday and Friday due to pain and fever, but if I continue to get these every few months for the rest of my life, I am not sure how reasonable an approach this is. The geeks among you will certainly have already heard of Dmitry Skylarov, Russian academic and father of two, who a week ago was arrested in Las Vegas after presenting an academic paper [1 (PowerPoint)] at the computer security conference Def Con [2]. Here is how the story apparently plays out: Dmitry wrote for his employer [3] software capable of decrypting Adobe's [4] pitifully insecure encryption format for electronic books. This is apparently completely legal under Russian law, but violates the new U.S. Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA). Apparently [5] at the behest of Adobe, Skylarov was arrested under the DMCA and faces a fine of $500,000 and a five-year jail term. This action, which smacks of the most hideous mode of free-speech suppression and thought-police strongarming, has most in the free software and electronic privacy communities absolutely livid. I am as well. At least two movements [6,7] are afoot to "Free Dmitry". And in a startling turn of events, Adobe has joined [8] the EFF [9] in urging Skylarov's release (use your own level of cynicism to decide whether this is goodwill or sheer terror at the prospect of incarnating a Fahrenheit 451 [10] universe.) For the non-tech readers, let me attempt an analogy (an analogue, if you will, in more than one sense.) Do you recall when the "The Club" (the automobile anti-theft device) and its ilk were introduced? They are the very strong iron braces that prevent a car's steering wheel from being turned while the vehicle's windshield is in place. They were advertised as being the ultimate in security, but I remember a particular television program that demonstrated two inherent flaws. First, and more creatively, liquid nitrogen could be applied to the iron bar (perhaps even from an aerosol can) making the metal very brittle; hitting the device with a crowbar would then cause it to fracture in two. Second, and less creatively, the steering wheel itself could be cut! This program aired on national television. Arresting Skylarov is the digital equivalent of jailing the presenter of this television program (fine, perhaps his boss sells the digital equivalent of a can of liquid nitrogen....) Non-techies, please read enough about this issue until you (1) agree with me or (2) understand why you disagree with me. Please do not simply believe the propaganda that paints Skylarov as a scary foreign rogue cracker. There is a qualitative difference between breaking into a bank to steal all the money from the safe, and simply pointing out that the bank leaves the safe wide open at night. There exits a petition [11] that will be presented to the U.S. Congress which has been signed by the likes of Jeff Bates [12], ESR [13], Linus Torvalds [14] and Bob Young[15]. If you agree with the sentiment and the text [7], please take a moment to sign your own name. I would especially like to see educators, librarians, lawyers and authors sign. [1] http://www.download.ru/defcon.ppt[2] http://www.defcon.org [3] http://www.elcomsoft.com [4] http://www.adobe.com [5] http://www.securitynewsportal.com/article.php?sid=1129 [6] http://www.freedmitry.org [7] http://www.dibona.com/dmca/index.shtml [8] http://www.thestandard.com/article/0,1902,28178,00.html?nl=dnt [9] http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Sklyarov/ [10] http://makeashorterlink.com/index.php?T29E36B0 [11] http://www.dibona.com/dmca/signup/index.shtml [12] http://slashdot.org [13] http://www.opensource.org [14] http://kernel.org [15] http://www.redhat.com
|
|||
