There’s very little that I watch on TV these days, especially now that Desperate Housewives is in remission. I’ve been told that House is pretty good, but I haven’t watched any episodes of that yet. However, I’ve watched the first two episodes of NUMB3RS (Mondays at 8:30pm, Channel 10), and I might continue to watch it. If you haven’t seen it, the story follows two brothers. One is an FBI agent, and the other is a maths genius. The maths genius helps his brother to solve crimes by drawing upon all sorts of mathematics. Sound a bit far-fetched? It is rather. But you’ve got to give it points for attempting, and partially succeeding, to combine action drama with the P versus NP problem.
the feeling of not feeling
I finally got myself a flickr account. Just thought I’d test the “Blog this” feature on a nice photo that I found.
Technorati redux
It seems I’m not the only one who’s disconcerted with the moist steaming mass that Technorati has become (or always was?). Jason Kottke writes:
That’s it. I’ve had it. No more Technorati.
…
Pretty much everyone I talk to in the industry thinks the site sucks and we’ve just been waiting for it to get better because, well, it would have to at some point, wouldn’t it? Well, I’m tired of waiting. Goodbye, Technorati…your url will darken the door of my browser no longer.
Thanks to David for alerting me to Jason’s post.
For what it’s worth, at least the Technorati javascript snippet has been working as it’s supposed to for the last week or so.
Song Crossfire
I’m sitting at my desk today trying to rewrite a journal paper that was accepted pending major revisions in March of this year. As per usual, I’ve got XMMS fired up and playing a selection of songs as I work. Kiss From a Rose by Seal was playing, and I started wondering about some of the lyrics that I couldn’t quite work out. Anyway, I came across an analysis of the lyrics at Song Crossfire, a web site run by some guys called Darryl and Jerry. Anyway, they have tongue-in-cheek arguments about the meanings of song lyrics, and sometimes their analysis and banter is freaking hilarious. I don’t know, maybe I was just utterly bored and likely to laugh at just about anything, but their Kiss From a Rose analysis had me in stitches towards the end.
Joel on Software
Michael Lawley’s Miscellaneous-B weblog directed me to an interesting article written by Joel Spolsky about the history of Hungarian Notation – a variable/procedure naming convention invented by Charles Simonyi of Microsoft. I’ve never liked the Hungarian Notation, but after reading Joel’s article and Simonyi’s paper, I realised that what I thought was Hungarian Notation is actually just a poor imitation of the real thing. Original Hungarian uses a prefix tag on a variable to describe the variable’s domain type rather than its representation type (as Michael so eloquently puts it). The domain type has to do with the vocabulary of the Universe of Discourse (e.g. if you’re a programmer working for NASA or one of its contractors, then you might write programs that are supposed to guide satellites and robots and such like, so one of the quantities you’d be dealing with is distance which can be measured in metres or feet). The representation type is the programming language type in which specific values are stored (so, using the NASA example, you’d store both metres and feet as IEEE floating point values or something like that). However, it would be an error to assign the value of a variable whose domain type is feet to another variable whose domain type is metres. In fact, this could lead to catastrophe, as the software engineers who worked on the Mars Climate Orbiter would know. The commonplace Hungarian notation prefixes variable names with a mnemonic identifying the representation or storage type of the variable. Other than allowing a programmer to see the representation type of a variable immediately, this modern Hungarian notation has little point, since in strongly typed languages the compiler will detect incorrect variable assignments. However, the compiler cannot detect errors to do with the semantics of the Universe of Discourse, which is where Simonyi’s original Hungarian notation comes into play.
Original Hungarian notation, which was known within Microsoft as Apps Hungarian, makes it harder for these kinds of screw-ups to occur. For instance, you might have a variable (or function, but then the first letter of the identifier should be capitalised) ftPhase1Orbit
that maintains the distance to the first target orbit measured in feet relative to the satellite. Here, ft
is the tag and Phase1Orbit
is the qualifier. Other variable names may be prefixed with the tag m
or mt
to signify the variables store distance in metres. A variable prefaced with ft
will never appear in an expression whose result is assigned to a variable starting with mt
unless it is wrapped in a function called MtFromFt
(metres from feet). For example, if you see the statement dmtOrbits = ftPhase2Orbit - ftPhase1Orbit
(the distance in metres between the two orbits is the difference between the distances to the two orbits relative to the craft), you can see immediately that something is wrong because the domain type on the left (mt
) does not match the domain type on the right (ft
). If instead you wrote something like deltaOrbits = phase2Orbit - phase1Orbit
there’s no way to see that you’ve made a mistake. The compiler will give you no help for these kinds of errors. In Apps Hungarian, a function name starts with a tag signifying the domain type that it returns, which is why we have MtFromFt
rather than FtToMt
. Of course, in NASA’s case, they ought to have been dealing in metric quantities all through their code, so this example is purely for illustrative purposes. All tags must be clearly documented (in code comments or elsewhere) so that the entire development team (current and future) knows the meaning of each one. (See Anthony’s recent informative article on the various code commenting styles he’s tried over the years.)
I’m not sure if the article did quite enough to persuade me to use Apps Hungarian in my programming (I probably should begin to use it because my programming practices are a little sloppy, and anything that instills some sort of discipline in my coding habits can only be a good thing at this point), but nevertheless, I thought the article was really interesting, so thanks to Michael for blogging it. Anyway, I’ve put this article here so that if I do convert to Hungarian notation and I need to justify this to somebody in my own words, I’ll have had some practice already. :-)
After reading Joel’s post on Hungarian Notation, I did a bit more looking around his web site. I found his 12 Steps to better code, which is a list of 12 questions to which you can answer yes or no. The more yeses there are, the better your score. What I like about the test is its simplicity. It is easy for a team of developers to evaluate where they stand on each question. If the answer to any question is no, it is usually clear what the development team needs to do in order to improve. While the test is very simple, each criterion seems very important to me. Last week I pointed my boss to Joel’s 12 point list, and now he wants to use it as a rating system for our own software development processes. So far, we rate about three yeses and four half yeses. With minimum effort, those half yeses could be converted to definite yeses. For instance, we currently do partially automated weekly builds; but with a little extra work, we could do fully automated daily builds, and there are very good reasons for doing daily builds rather than waiting until the end of the week to build and test the current code snapshot. For one thing, bugs are found and resolved sooner than would otherwise be the case.
I think I’ll read Joel more often from now on.
Technorati
In case you’re wondering why sometimes the "Blogosphere" section on the right hand side of this page often appears to be empty, I’d just like to say it’s not my fault. Or at least I don’t think it is. That section contains the little embedded Javascript thing that shows the Technorati image and a link that says "Blogs that link here". You configure what shows up here by going to your Technorati account and choosing what you would like to be displayed. Well, every so often Technorati just seems to forget my settings. To make the image and the link show up again, I have to log in to Technorati and save my settings. If it disappears again, I’m just going to remove it from my web page altogether. Technorati seems like it’s a good idea, but so far the idea has been less than brilliantly executed.
On Islam
During BIFF I watched two films that touched on the subject of Islam and its relationship to the West. It set me to wondering about what most westerners (and in particular western Christians) actually know about Islam and the Qur’an, as opposed to what they learn from the news and during interviews with outspoken men whom some parts of the Muslim community look up to as "leaders". It also worries me that many Muslims appear to forget about the deep-rooted similarities between Islam and Christianity/Judaism.
For instance, and maybe I’m starting at too basic a level, how many of you, gentle readers, realise that the Qur’an states that the Scriptures (i.e. the Torah/Old Testament) and the Gospel (i.e. the New Testament) are to be adhered to (and it states this not just once but many times), that Jesus was born of Mary via one of God’s miracles (Surah 3: The Imrans), and that Jews and Christians who adhere to the Scriptures and the Gospel should have nothing to fear or regret (Surah 5: The Table)? Islam, like Judaism and Christianity, is an Abrahamic religion, which means followers of these religions all believe in the same God. The Qur’an reiterates many of the stories told in the Torah and the Gospel. If there is so much overlap, why, as Muslims believe, did God need to reveal the Qur’an to Mohammed via the Angel Gabriel?
In some respects, the Qur’an can be looked upon as a reminder to observe the Scriptures and the Gospel. If one reads the Qur’an, one finds that God is displeased with the way in which many Jews and Christians practice their faith. Catholicism, for instance, turns God into a Holy Trinity made up of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (the concept of the Holy Trinity was not born until the time of the Ecumenical Councils in the 4th Century A.D., and in fact Christian Doctrine by this time had undergone quite a transformation from the faith practiced by the earliest Christians). Jews fail to acknowledge that Jesus is the Messiah and that he was born of God’s miracle. Islam acknowledges Jesus Christ as an important prophet and the only prophet to have been born through divine intervention. However, Islam stops short of making Jesus part of the God figure.
People often don’t realise that Islam shares common roots with Christianity and Judaism because God is called "Allah". But this is simply the Arabic word for God (with a capital ‘G’), in the same way that Dios is the Spanish word for God. The Arabic word for god (little ‘g’) is "illah" (not sure whether this is the usual Romanisation of the word). Therefore, when talking about Islam and "Allah" in English, it is appropriate to use the term "God" rather than "Allah". I think this small step on its own, if adhered to in the literature and in the media and if Muslims used this convention when speaking in English, would go some way towards bridging the divide between moderate/secular Muslims and the rest of the Australian community. Distrust breeds where ignorance lies, and every small thing that can highlight similarities rather than differences in a tension filled situation must be siezed upon.
The onus is on moderate Muslims to stand up and denounce extremism and to educate non-Muslims about their religion. I think it’s sad that many Muslims – and most visibly some so-called Muslim clerics/leaders (Islam, like Judaism but unlike most of the branches of Christianity, has no clerical hierarchy) – seem to overlook the many passages in the Qur’an that beseech them to understand Judaism and Christianity, and to be mindful of the Scriptures and the Gospel. Extremists are the vocal minority. Where are the voices of the moderate majority? Where are the Crazy John’s, the Zinedine Zidane’s and the millions of others who practice moderate Islam? Stand up and be counted.
Note: It is not my intention in this article to either endorse moderate Islam or denounce it, but rather to highlight only a few of the many commonalities between the Abrahamic religions. At the risk of stating the obvious, I do denounce Islamic extremism, just as I denounce any other philosophies that promote violence and terror. As those closest to me would realise, this article has nothing to do with my own religious/philosophical persuasions.
Blacktown
Until Blacktown, I’d never watched a film guided by the Dogma 95 Manifesto. I think I can also quite safely say that I’ve never watched a movie that is set in the town of my birth. I don’t expect ever to see a film shot in Blacktown again, but you never know.
The Dogma 95 (Danish: Dogme 95) Manifesto aims for utmost simplicity in filmmaking. No special effects. Small crews. Cheap, cheap films. What you end up with are home-movie quality pictures. Given the absence of all the bells and whistles of big-budget films, there are no misconceptions about why you have come to watch the film: for the plot and the characters.
While Blacktown was ultimately likeable, it was probably by far my least favourite film of the festival. Blacktown is writer/director Kriv Stenders’ second film (his first was The Illustrated Family Doctor). I admire Stenders for wanting to make a movie on no budget at all; however I thought he could have worked on the plot a bit more before shooting began, and I reckon there was more onscreen chemistry between John Howard and Queen Elizabeth II in their recent Buckingham Palace meeting than there was between the lead actors in this film. But then, doing casting properly must be an expensive process, so I’ll forgive the film for that.
Nikki Moore (Niki Owen) works as a secretary. She’s in some kind of on and off relationship with Peter (Kriv Stenders). Her colleague sets her up on a disastrous blind date, which ends when Tony (Tony Ryan) rescues her from the situation. By fits and starts, Nikki and Tony fall in love. It’s an unlikely match. He’s an aboriginal, she is not (this issue is one of the barriers that characters overcome by the end of the film). He’s a reformed alcoholic, substance abuser and criminal who’s served time in gaol. But he can sing, and he’s a character, and he uses his charms to convince Nikki that he’s the right guy for her.
Though the film may have given an accurate representation of the path a modern relationship takes, it failed to be really interesting. Maybe the plot was too real, too ordinary. In my view, films should rarely present life exactly the way it is. We live that every day, and we don’t need to see that on the big screen. We knew how the film would end, even though a paltry effort was made to throw some uncertainty into the mix. For films such as Blacktown to really work, something out of the ordinary needs to happen, especially if it has the added layer of reality given to it by the pseudo-documentary filming style. I’m absolutely certain that had Mr. Stenders used his creative talents to flesh out the plot prior to filming, Blacktown would have been a much better movie for it.
Yes
Some might be put off by the thought of a film in which the dialogue is almost entirely in verse; but after having seen Yes, a movie by director Sally Potter, verse is the perfect delivery mechanism. In such a natural manner are the lines delivered by the actors, that it took me several scenes to realise that the dialogue was in verse (barring the opening scene with the maid talking about dirt and cleanliness). This movie was clever, sad, funny and extremely relevant in today’s cultural and religious climate.
One feature of this film is that we are never told the names of the leading characters. She, played by Joan Allen, is an Irish born American scientist living in a marriage from which all love has been extinguished. Her husband, Anthony (Sam Neill), is a philandering, well-to-do British politician who feels that She is a cold woman. At a formal dinner, She meets He (Simon Abkarian), a Muslim waiter and chef from Lebanon. He notices the sullen mood of She at the dinner, and quickly proposes what might be called a tryst. Feeling trapped in her loveless marriage, she accepts.
We find out that He was once a surgeon in Beirut, but fled Lebanon after he saved a man from certain death only to him shot in front of his eyes. The killers told him only to treat those on the right side of the civil war. As a doctor, He could not abide this, and left the country immediately. She, having grown up in a nation of similar turmoil can sympathise with what He has come through. Their love is passionate and true.
There is one eyebrow raising scene in which He and She engage in some under the table intimacy at a restaurant. The scene required utmost delicacy from the director and needed to be played perfectly by the actors and it was. Less competent direction and acting might have turned what was a beautiful moment in the film into something filthy and artless.
A moment of conflict arises when He loses his job at a restaurant after He is insulted by one of his colleagues. Although He appears confident and comfortable in the western world, this incident exposes his fragility and the frustration he feels at being persecuted for his religious beliefs. He questions Her about her motives in this relationship. Is he just her exotic plaything? Why is it that he can compose verse in English and has read the Bible while She (and the western population in general) knows not one word of Arabic and knows nothing of the Qur’an? (Aside: I’d actually argue that if you’ve read the Bible, then you’d have a pretty fair idea of what’s in the Qur’an and vice-versa, but everybody always seems to completely overlook this point. More on this in a later post.)
During their argument, She is called away to her dying Aunt’s bedside in Belfast. Her Aunt is a Marxist through and through. We hear the Aunt speaking in an amusing unconscious soliloquy, poking fun at She, and giving She advice, all of which She cannot hear. That is, all except her last words, spoken aloud, which beseech her to go to Cuba to cleanse herself. She does go, and He meets her in Cuba after visiting Lebanon where he is tempted to take up his job as a surgeon once again.
Yes is a film I thoroughly enjoyed. It pulled off the modern Shakesperean verse without being pretentious in the slightest. My brother, who came to the screening, loved the film for goodness’ sakes, and he usually hates this kind of thing (being more partial to the Die Hard genre). I could say the film became a little too overtly leftist at its conclusion, but that really would be nit-picking. Yes was a truly memorable movie-going experience.
Puppy
Puppy is a new Australian film from writer/director Kieran Galvin about two people who fall in love in a strange set of circumstances. We were lucky enough to watch the premiere of Puppy at the Regent Cinema. The director, producer, main cast and other members of the film crew were in the audience on the night.
Liz (Nadia Townsend) is rather calamitous, and her life is pretty screwed. To begin with, she runs over her sister’s dog, steals her sister’s necklace to pay for the vet to operate on the dog (the dog dies anyway), and then she is kicked out of her sister’s and her sister’s partner’s flat. We then find out that years earlier she watched as her slow minded brother killed himself by jumping off a rooftop carpark when he was trying to fly. Now Liz just wants to die, so she tries to gas herself in her car. But even this fails. Later in the film she tells us she wasn’t really trying to kill herself, but the fact is, she would have unless Aiden (Bernard Curry) had "saved" her.
We quickly learn that Aiden is highly delusional. He mistakes Liz for his wife (who’s left him). Aiden rescues Liz from her exhaust filled car and drives her off in his truck to his house in the countryside. He ties Liz to the bed, puts a dog collar on her and keeps her on a rope whenever she’s not tied to the bed. Slowly, he begins to trust that Liz won’t try to escape, and lets her walk about the house freely.
Of course, Liz does try to escape when Aiden goes out, but she’s stopped by Aiden’s two fierce dogs (I’m sure most people would have risked escape, anyway.). She later tricks Aiden into calling the local doctor, who comes to the house but then keels over and dies of a heart attack. Then, after managing to overcome Aiden by partially strangling him, she kills one of his dogs and tries to drive the truck away, but being rather prone to disaster, Liz merely manages to back the truck into a shed and gets it stuck.
Having tied Aiden to the bed, Liz feeds him the medication he’s been desparately in need of. Aiden undergoes a complete transformation as his delusions subside, and he wonders what awful things he might have done to Liz. Around this time, Liz decides to dig a shallow grave for the dead doctor, at which point Aiden’s wife comes to check on him. By this time Liz has grown fond of Aiden. She’s worried that his wife is trying to get him institutionalised. Let’s just say she quickly ends up in the grave with the dead doctor and the dead dog. Eventually, the police become suspicious, first about the missing doctor, and then about Aiden’s missing wife. But they’re very incompetent policemen.
I might have done Puppy a slight injustice by making it seem a little bit sillier than it really was. I did like the film, but not as much as the previous two movies I saw at BIFF this year. While the performances were good (particularly from Bernard Curry), I found some elements of the film totally unbelievable. Poor Liz’s failed attempts at escape moved from the frustrating (which is a totally valid feeling to conjure in the movie audience) to the ridiculous (which is not a feeling at all, and had no place in this film). It’s a good start from first time director Kieran Galvin, but his best is surely yet to come.