7

You know the rule of thumb that says humans can only hold 7 (+ or – 2) items in short-term memory at a given time? Well, while reading Information Architecture for the World Wide Web I came across a reference to the original research on the subject.

In his opening comments, Prof. George A. Miller says:

“My problem is that I have been persecuted by an integer. For seven years this number has followed me around, has intruded in my most private data, and has assaulted me from the pages of our most public journals. This number assumes a variety of disguises, being sometimes a little larger and sometimes a little smaller than usual, but never changing so much as to be unrecognizable.”

The paper explains what the number 7 really means in terms of human perception and cognition. It’s a fascinating article, and a must-read if you enjoy knowing the true origins of such pieces of modern folk wisdom.

Further reading:

The Two Towers

We went to see The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers yesterday evening. It’s a very impressive film, but I don’t think it was nearly as good as Fellowship. There are a number of reasons for that. It’s the middle slice of a trilogy, so it has neither a beginning nor an end. It relies more heavily on CGI, which is still a very risky strategy. It uses moments of slapstick to deliver comic relief where none are warranted. The book does a lot of character development that the film just dumps, and in one instance even completely rewrites. Also, in the context of current world events, the film is also dangerously jingoistic.

I use the word “dangerous” because in The Lord Of The Rings the war is being fought against inhuman opponents. In real life, though, the dehumanization of one’s enemies has led to some of the worst atrocities in history. I’m sure that the hawks will love the overt message that one has to go to war against evil, because for most of 2002 they’ve done nothing but paint Saddam Hussein with the “evil” brush. The timing of The Two Towers regrettably means that it (unintentionally?) weighs in as pro-war propaganda.

I’m going to have to write a full review and analysis of the film, even if it’s just so set my own mind straight about what I think of it. I may even have to go in and see it again. The only thing I’m certain of right now is that it is not going to get a five-star rating from me.

No-fly zone

Stories like this one are becoming increasingly prevalent of late (via WebWord). Some of them are simply made up, some are exaggerated to make for better propaganda, but some of them are just true. It makes me a little bit worried that with all the anti-war, anti-capitalist, and anti-Bush stuff I’ve written this last year, I’ll find myself on a no-fly list when Scott and I do our Toad the Wet Sprocket road trip next year.

We’ll see. I do find it encouraging, though, that both right- and left-wing voices (the Lew Rockwell site on which this article appeared bills itself as “the premier anti-state, pro-market site on the net”–not my usual reading matter) in the US are expressing dismay and fear over the policies and practices that could turn the USA into a police state. “Land of the free,” and all that, remember?

And while I’m in the politics/economics zone anyway, Andrew Orlowski in The Register has an interesting article about the beginnings of a backlash against short-termism in investment markets. Well worth reading.

The Dawn Of Amber

To borrow Alex’s favourite phrase: uh-oh.

“Roger Zelazny’s The Dawn Of Amber – The New Amber Novel by John Gregory Betancourt.” I found this in Transreal bookshop this morning, and I cannot help but be afraid…very afraid.

The reviews I’ve found of it (Paul Di Filippo on SciFi.com, and Alma A. Hromic on SFSite.com) do nothing to alleviate this anxiety.

I myself have extensively abused the Amber universe and mythology in numerous Amber role-playing sessions, but Zelazny’s canon has always been sacred. Yet here is the first volume in a new trilogy that has been sanctioned by Zelazny’s estate. (Note: not necessarily in accordance with Zelazny’s actual wishes.)

One of the cover quotes is from twice-Hugo-winning Richard A. Lupoff, who says:

“[Betancourt] is the ideal choice to assume Roger Zelazny’s mantle…”

Um. Neil Gaiman or Steven Brust would seem a more obvious choice, but there you go….

I bought the book, but I’m still not sure if I actually want to read it. I’ll let you know what I think if I do.

Follow-ups

The other day, I noted that Edinburgh Council had banned filming at school events (such as nativity plays) where not all parents have given their consent. They have now rescinded this ban. Yay!

I would praise this as a victory for common sense, but unfortunately the Council only reversed their decision after parents threatened to take legal action against them. This is pointedly ironic, because the Council put the measure in place specifically to avoid lawsuits from parents (in case photos or films fell into the hands of paedophiles).

In other positive news, the US government has found Iraq’s 12,000-page declaration to be a “mostly accurate” description of their arms capabilities, and declared that they will wait until the weapons inspectors issue their final report before committing more troops and resources to the Gulf region.

Ah, shit, I just made that one up. Predictably, Bush & co. are holding firm to their policy of “Guilty until proven innocent, and even then we won’t believe the verdict.” I find their eagerness to go to war–jumping at any opportunity to pull the trigger–really scary.

With Al Gore ruling himself out of as a candidate for the 2004 presidential elections, political pundits are now giving King George good odds of winning a second term. Now that goes beyond scary and well into actively terrifying. A few months ago, a Channel 4 poll found that more than a third of people in the UK consider Bush a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein.

Iraq has complied with the new UN resolutions, and in doing so has proved itself willing to find a diplomatic resolution to the current crisis. Why can’t we do the same? By continuing the military build-up in the Gulf region, and by talking nothing but the language of war, the West may be just trying to scare Hussein into following through on his promises. Speak loudly, and carry a big stick? This is almost the definition of brinkmanship. It’s a dangerous game, and one I wish we would stop playing.

Peace and goodwill to all men. Except them. And them. Oh, and definitely not them.

We’re livin’ in a mean time, in an aggressive time,
a painful time. A time where cynicism rots the vine,
in a time where violence blocks the summer shine

Michael Franti & SpearheadRock the Nation

These are conservative times. Western society is mean-spirited, small-minded, fearful, and selfish. As if we needed any more examples of this, here is an absolute classic: Edinburgh Council has banned parents from filming, or taking pictures of their children’s nativity play performances, in case the images fall into the hands of paedophiles. (The Guardian, BBC, Scotland on Sunday)

It’s not quite a complete ban. The rule is that the school or nursery must have written consent from each parent whose child is in the performance before anyone can use a camera. School staff are allowed to take pictures regardless, but they must ensure that any child whose parents have not explicitly granted permission is edited out.

This is one of the most blatant, cynical Cover-Your-Ass manoeuvres I have ever seen. It will not protect children, because a potential paedophile can still get into the audience to watch the performance. Or they could buy the school’s tape of the performance. Or they could even be a parent themselves, who is more than happy to provide the school with the appropriate consent form.

The measure is nonsensical on so many levels that it truly beggars belief. The only purpose it can serve is to protect Edinburgh Council from legal liability. If they sufficiently restrict the rights of the majority, then maybe they won’t have to deal with the transgressions of a minority.

It doesn’t work like that. The minority will transgress, and this measure does nothing to deal with what happens then.

Fortunately, I’m not the only one who recognizes this. Edinburgh Council sneaked the guidelines under everyone’s radar two months ago. The newspapers have only just now got hold of them, and they’re going mental.


In other happy news, the US has now endorsed assassination as valid foreign policy, so long as the targets are classified as “combatants of war”. So the US is responding to attacks by suicide bombers with state-sanctioned assassinations. Hang on a moment. That sounds really familiar. Where have I seen that before…? Oh yes–Israel!

It’s good to see that the Bush administration has learned from one of the countries at the heart of the explosive tension that exists in the world today. In the last few years Israel has quite conclusively shown that you don’t need international approval, or weapons inspectors, or peace processes. Because attacking terrorism by killing your opponent’s leaders doesn’t create martyrs. It doesn’t lead to a vicious spiral of increasingly bloody retribution, either. So long as you have righteous indignation on your side, it’ll all work out just fine.