The Last King of Scotland

Saw The last king of Scotland at the OU film society on Wednesday. A powerful film, and it set me thinking again about what gives a person control over others. What was it that enabled Idi Amin to (mis)rule Uganda for so long - what enables anyone to hold political power (or any sort of power over other people, come to that). Once again I'm sure there is an explanation that talks about information, at various levels. For example, Garrigan eventually, but too late, attempted to kill Amin. He could have done it relatively easily earlier in his relationship with the dictator, but he didn't at that stage realise what Amin and his supporter were up to. Amin manipulated Garrigan, as he did everyone, through control of what he knew. I want to argue that it is always thus with political power. Political manoeuvring is about maniplulation of information.

Broadband

Minister leads push for faster broadband

· Britain can't afford to lag behind, Timms warns
· Summit to discuss who pays £7bn fibre-optic bill

So, we might finally be reaching the stage where we need fibre-to-the-home (FTTH). Way back, twenty years? there was much discussion about the desirability of replacing, or supplementing, the twisted-pair copper cable that takes telephony into the home by optical fibre. But a combination of technology and politics/economics have put off the time when it can or needs to be done. Technological advances have enabled undreamed-of data rates to be carried by the old copper, while the break-up of the monopoly of BT made it more difficult to fund the installation of fibre everywhere. So what we've seen instead is fibre pretty much everywhere else, but not to the home. But now, so it is argued, the inexorable rise in demand for getting bits into the home is finally proving just too much for the poor old copper.

However, thinking about the information, why do we need all these bits? Certainly at one level it is very clear. If you want to bring in HD TV over your internet connection, you certainly do need the bit rate (at the moment anyway). But what I'm thinking is that the human brain, so I understand, can only process something of the order of a few bits, or maybe a few tens of bits, per second. So my house with four residents should be well-covered by a couple of hundred bits per second maximum!

25 million lost records

Lost in the post - 25 million at risk after data discs go missing Guardian , BBC

I don't know that I've got anything to add about this, at the moment anyway, it is just so obviously an 'information' story.

diamond in the rice puzzle

Here's something from years back, that I thought was a nice example of thinking in terms of information.

I saw the puzzle in 'The Man Who Counted' by Malba Tahan (Norton 1993). A diamond is hidden in one of eight sacks of rice. The one with the diamond will be heavier than the other seven, and you have a balance to use to find out which one it is in, but you are only allowed two weighings. (I'm doing this from memory, I'm sure the details will be different from what was in the book, but the puzzle is the same.)

I'll put in a bit of space before discussing it, in case you want to think about it before seeing the answer.













Scroll down...













I started by thinking you would need three weighings, because I assumed you would do it as a binary calculation. However he trick is to realise that there are three outcomes from each weighing: left heavier, right heavier or balanced, so you need to make use of the 'balanced' condition as well as the other two. You compare two groups of three sacks (say nos 1,2,3 compared to 4,5,6). If it balances, you know it is not in any of those six, so it must be in one of the other two and you weigh 7 against 8 which gives you the answer. If instead 1+2+3 is heavier than 4+5+6, then you weigh 1 against 2. Either one those is heavier (giving you the answer) or they balance, in which case it is in 3. If 4+5+6 were heavier you do the same for them (weigh 4 against 5, form example).

You could of course find the diamond in this way from 9 sacks, but saying eight misleads you into thinking of binary steps.

The three outcomes from each weighing means that you can distinguish 3 x 3 = 9 different solutions, hence you can identify up to nine different situations. Or, you could say that each weighing gives you log2(3) = 1.585 bits of information. Two weighings gives you 2 x 1.585 = 3.17 bits of information. Finding 1 from 8 equally-probable outcomes requires log2(8) = 3 bits, so the 3.17 bits from the two weighing is enough information. (And of course log2(9) = 2 x log2(3))

Dennett

In the way of the web, a slightly tangential route* led me to this site: mind, matter, meaning and information.


It leads with this quotation:

It is tempting to suppose that some concept of information could serve eventually to unify mind, matter, and meaning in a single theory.

Daniel C Dennett and John Haugeland

I guess that is pretty much where I'm coming from.

*The current London Review of Books contains letters following on from a paper about evolution in an earlier issue (Jerry Fodor Why Pigs Don’t Have Wings, LRB 18 October 2007). A letter from Daniel Dennett was the only one that used the word 'information', yet it seems to me that you can't talk meaningfully about evolution without reference to information. This led me to search the web for 'Dennett information'.

Remembrance day continued

(I'm not sure the best mechanics of this. Should I go back and add to yesterday's post, or continue the story here? I think the latter, since otherwise readers, should there be any, wouldn't necessarily know that the post was changed. Or maybe a blog isn't actually the best tool for what I'm trying to do.)

Well anyway. Just to finish off from yesterday's post, the point I getting to was that "Blackadder Goes Forth" is not nothing but a load of 1s and 0s. Something else emerges? Is that the right way to think about it? Emergence? Watching the DVD is not the same as remembering WWI, but it's not recalling a PIN number either.

Remembrance day

In his sermon for the remembrance day service at the Church of Christ the Cornerstone yesterday, the preacher, David Tatem, spoke of the need to distinguish types of remembering. He proposed to speak of 'recalling' PIN numbers and passwords, and reserving 'remembering' for things like remembering the experience of war - reliving the experience, perhaps. He went on to point out that he was not in a position to remember the first world war in that sense, indeed there only remain a few individuals alive who can remember the first world war - but there are tragically many who can remember the wars since.

The sermon went on to talk about uncomfortable issues such the role of British arms in wars all over the world, but my point here is to raise a question the nature of information in these different types of remembering. Few would disagree that recalling a PIN number is about information (4 denary digits convey log2(10000) = 13.29 bits), but what about remembering the war?

Probably the main source of information about WWI for my 14 year old son has been 'Blackadder goes forth', watched on his CD boxed-set. The CDs, of course, encode the episodes digitally. Lots and lots of bits, but nothing but* a load of 1s and 0s none the less. But that's not remembering, in the David Tatem sense, of course.

*Notice the nothing-buttery which was how I heard reductionism described, when I first encountered it in the Oxford University Bampton Lectures by Arthur Peacocke in 1978.

Enough for now. It is past my bedtime.

First real-world use of quantum cryptography

From IET Engineering and Technology November 2007, "Swiss election marks 'first real-world use of quantum cryptography'". It was used to secure communication along dedicated optical fibre links used for counting ballots. The system was developed by University of Geneva spin-off company id Quantique. (The id Quantique Press Release.) I hadn't realised quantum cryptography was so close to reality.

An interesting quote in the piece, from Geneva State Chancellor Robert Hensler:

Information is the raw material of the State. Whether in the context of a political decision, a police investigation or hospital care, the State is both regulator of information exchange and a provider of information-based services.

101 gadgets, from The Independent

101 gadgets that changed the world
Compiled by Simon Usborne, Independent Published: 03 November 2007

This list appeared in last Saturday's Independent. I've grouped them into those that I argue deal with Information in one form or another, and those that don't. You might disagree with my categorisation... I might add some further discussion at some point. At the moment, I'm claiming 55 of them as information gadgets, leaving 46 that are not - so more than 50% of technology is about information. Actually I'd expected to be able to claim more of them. (The numbers alongside them are just the number from the original list, which was alphabetical so they don't mean anything - they are just labels.)

Information gadgets:

1. Abacus, AD190
4. Atari 2600, 1977
6. Barcode, 1973
9. Biro, 1938
10. Blackberry, 1999
14. Camcorder, 1983
15. Camera, 1826
17. CD, 1965
18. Clockwork radio, 1991
19. Compass, 1190
21. Credit card, 1950
22. Digital camera, 1975
23. Digital TV recorder, 1999
24. Digital watch, 1972
25. Drum, 12,000BC
28. Eraser, 1770
29. Fax machine, 1843
30. Fibre optic cable, 1966
33. Floppy disk, 1971
37. GPS, 1978
41. iPod, 2001
43. Laptop, 1982
46. Lead pencil, 1564
48. Locks, 2000BC
50. Mechanical clock, 1092
51. Microchip, 1958
52. Microscope, 1590
54. Mobile phone, 1947
55. Mouse, 1964
56. Nintendo Gameboy, 1989
57. Noise-cancelling headphones, 1988
58. Paper clip, c.1892
59. Paper, AD105
60. PC, 1977
63. Pocket calculator, 1971
64. Polaroid camera, 1947
66. Post-it note, 1973
67. Printing press, 1454
68. Qwerty keyboard, 1868
69. Radio, 1895
70. Robot, 1921
76. SMS, 1992
77. Spectacles, 1451
78. Stethoscope, 1819
81. Telephone, 1876
82. Telescope, 1608
83. Television, 1925
84. The internet, 1969
87. Thermometer, 1592
90. Transistor radio, 1953
91. Transistor, 1947
92. TV remote control, 1950
96. VHS recorder, 1976
98. Walkman, 1979
99. Weighing scales, 5000BC

The rest:

2. Archimedes Screw, c.700BC
3. Aspirin, 1899
5. Barbed wire, 1873
7. Battery, 1800
8. Bicycle, 1861
11. Bow and arrow, 30,000BC
12. Bra, 1913
13. Button, 1235
16. Cardiac pacemaker, 1958 (Maybe I could claim this one.)
20. Condom, 1640
26. Dynamite, 1867
27. Electric shaver, 1928
31. Fire, 590,000BC
32. Fish hook, 30,000BC
34. Flushing toilet, 1597
35. Fridge, 1834
36. Gore-Tex, 1972
38. Guillotine, 1792
39. Gun, 14th century
40. Internal combustion engine, 1859
42. Kettle, 1891
44. Laser, 1960
45. Lawnmower, 1830
47. Light bulb, 1848
49. Machine gun, 1884
53. Microwave oven, 1946
61. Plough, AD100
62. Pneumatic tyre, 1845
65. Pop-up toaster, 1926
71. Rubber band, 1845
72. Saddle, AD200
73. Safety razor, 1895
74. Sellotape, 1937
75. Sewing machine, 1830
79. Swiss Army Knife, 1897
80. Syringe, 1844
85. The match, 1826
86. The Pill, 1951
88. Tools, 2,600,000BC
89. Toothbrush, 1498
93. Umbrella, 2400BC
94. Vacuum cleaner, 1901
95. Velcro, 1948
97. Vibrator, 1902
100. Wheel, 3500BC
101. Zip, 1913

Ian McEwan's Atonement.

Spoiler Warning! I'm assuming you already know the story. If you've not read the book or seen the film, I might be giving away the ending.

The book is surely all about information. There is the information that Briony gives to the police, but more significantly is her belief (which of course she doesn't actually believe) that she can atone by writing the story with a different, happy, ending. She implies that this makes it 'real' because that's all that remains, no one knows any different. This is wonderful because we think: no, it's not what really happened, yet Ian McEwan could have made it 'really' different if he'd written a different book...

This surely takes us into the realm of 'What is history?' (E. H. Carr). Can we ever know the truth of history? Is there such a thing?

Phil Picton's work on seeing with sound

Evaluating stereo cartoon depth maps as scene information for the blind, Picton, P. and Capp, M. SEVENTH LASTED INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SIGNAL AND IMAGE PROCESSING : 500-504, 2005.

Phil Picton's system for enabling blind people to 'see' through sound (this paper is about ways of getting stereo images). Clearly it is all about manipulating information.

It's behind you

It's behind you, Keri Allan, Eng & tech v2 n7 July 2007 pp38-40.

'Virtual surround sound'. Tricks the ear into thinking the sound comes from various directions. In the end, all you have is two sets of nerves coming from the ears, so I guess you are targetting the information travelling down these.