The BBC does know how to punish its own in the most inventive ways. At least, that’s why I think they picked Kirsty Wark to be the voiceover for the “This programme contains so many swear words it will probably turn your bones to dust” warning they had midway through their screening of Jerry Springer - The Opera, after her ill-advised Christmas chumminess with the Scottish First Minister. Sorting out one of its problems by dropping her into another one - you have admire their cleverness.

A really interesting essay on sleep (via Boing Boing), and not only the biological but also the social factors that shape it. As a self-confessed owl who had never recovered from sleeping in late as a teenager, it’s of special interest to me, and makes me feel a little less guilty about lying in in the mornings. Unfortunately, it doesn’t help me much with the 9 o’clock lecture I have on Monday…

40,000 people complain about Jerry Springer - The Opera….before it’s actually been screened. The large number does sound a bit fishy to me, no television programme gets that many complaints even after its screened (the controversial Brass Eye paedophilia episode only got 2,500). Are we now seeing what has happened in the United States, where heavily organised campaigns flood in from particular organisations? 99.8% of complaints to the FCC last year were made by one group, the Parents Television Council, a faith-based lobby group; most of the complaints are form letters which differ only by the signatory. I’d like to know if the complaints here are of a similar nature.

Mary Whitehouse’s legacy, Mediawatch UK (warning, site is designed to violate your eyeballs - you’d think they’d have a nice relaxing scheme, rather than one that makes the reader seek hard-core porn sites as a friendly-to-the-eye alternative) could be behind it, though I can’t find much information at the moment.

Regardless of who’s doing it, this is effectively a real-world DoS attack on the broadcasting organisations and regulators. While the right to complain about the content of broadcasting is essential (and to be fair, JSTO is pretty sweary, though it’s not IMHO blasphemous), efforts like this are an abuse of the organisations’ duty to review and read every complaint. Quantity, rather than quality of complaints, becomes the yardstick as to whether a programme should or should not be broadcast. If this campaign succeeds, it would mean in future, broadcasters could be at the mercy of any organisation capable of launching the ‘nuclear option’ of mass, carbon-copy complaints.

Five years ago, Neal Stephenson wrote In the Beginning…was the Command Line, an interesting and persuasive article on the evolution of operating systems, that is just about the right level detail without being boring, and is just about challenging enough without losing the non-techie reader.

Now Garrett Birkel has written The Command Line in 2004, an annotated version of Stephenson’s original, with some counter-points and interesting commentary, from a 2004 viewpoint. Both original and annotation are well-written, although I’d advise caution on relying too heavily on the car/monkey analogies (which can only stretch so far), and I’d stay well clear of the tangential ramblings on cultural relativism. Stick with the OS-related stuff, and it’s an interesting read. And it also contains the wonderful phrase “informational soixante-neuf”.

(You can also read an original, unannotated copy. It is worth remembering when reading either that since the release of OS X, Stephenson has changed his mind somewhat on some aspects).

Although a reference to the tsunami is rather unconfortably crammed in the first few paragraphs, a Jared Diamond article summarising the threats the environment faces is an interesting read, regardless of the timing.

His linkage of failed states with those facing environmental damage is an interesting one, but he doesn’t do enough to convince me. Neither Iraq, nor Afghanistan, are facing potential environmental catastrophe in the same way that famine-struck African nations or low-lying countries like Bangladesh are. While environmental strain can undoubtedly a major factor in many cases, I would hesitate to draw a one-on-one relationship, when there can be so many other causes (I doubt the environment factors were a major contribution to the breakup of Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s, for example).

The article gets stronger as it goes on, attacking some of the existing myths about the enrionment. Renewable energy is not viable in the short-term, and GM crops will do little to prevent starvation. Most importantly (although this is only granted a couple of sentences) the adoption of more resource-intensive lifestyles by existing people in developing worlds, rather than population growth itself, is the biggest concern. The world’s two most populous countries, China and India, are rapidly growing economically; the addition of hundreds of millions to the global middle class, and the increase in energy and resources needed to satisfy them, while we in the West show little leadership by reducing our own heavily unsustainable consumption, is one of my biggest worries for the environment’s future.

A superb flaming of astrology in today’s Guardian. A snippet:

“What star sign are you?”

“I’m whatever sign whose prediction this week read, ‘On Sunday, a friend who has masqueraded as a rational human being for the 15 years of your acquaintance will stand revealed before you as just another cack-brained, gibbering fool swirling in a festering cesspit of stupidity’.”

Astrology has always mystified me. Why do people who usually claim to being rational and level-headed happily let some snake oil man in a newspaper predict and dictate their actions? Why especially do newspapers like the Mail, which preach “common sense” shriekingly from the rooftops, happily peddle idiotic “personalised horoscopes” on the following page?

A counter-argument is that “Well, it’s only a little bit of harmless fun” - well, no. It’s fraud, simple as that. A few people are happily getting rich (admittedly, with admirable chutzpah) by conning others into saying they predict the future and the stars are guiding you (hang on, why aren’t I doing this? I could write a pseudorandom generator for the horoscopes and let the cash roll in).

And while Joe Public living by their horoscope is relatively “harmless” in the great scheme of things, it gets a little less serious when you find out an American President happily relied on them. Dunno about you, but I feel a little worried by a man with his hand on the nuclear button being manipulated by some shady soothsayer.

Egotism, I think, is probably the driving force. That and lack of time or commitment. Unlike other systems of belief, such as most major religions, which rely much on communal activity, sacrifice and humility (a generalisation I know, but a reasonably accurate one), the astrologist just wants your money. In return, what you get is purely individualised - the more money you fling, the more individualisation. At the very heart of it lies a spectacular arrogance, in the belief that the planets and stars are actually moving on your behalf - if the world doesn’t revolve around you, then at least all the other celestial bodies are doing so.

Goal or not? A tricky decision to make, if you’re reffing at Old Trafford.

As the deadly extent of the disaster became truly apparent over the past ten days, I’ve noticed the sheer futility of most of the information and news (in the West). In the especially information-saturated society we now live in, every last bit of news and trivia on the disaster has been squeezed out, some pretentious and some of it insensitive to the point of utter crassness. But even the ’serious’ news is as useless - do we really need to keep on seeing endless videos of the waves crashing in or the intricately detailed satellite photography? The permanent desire on the likes of Boing Boing and MeFi to keep on linking amd blogging stuff, no matter how irrelevant, makes me feel distinctly uneasy. For those of us lucky enough not to have had any friends or family involved in the tragedy, isn’t the fact that over a hundred thousand died and millions have had their lives ruined enough demonstration of the true horror of it all? Most of the additional information is purely supplementary, to the point of uselessness.

I suspect we are futile here too. If we dislike our government’s foreign policy, trade rules, lax safety laws, or other causes of man-made disasters, we are fortunate enough, in a democracy, to campaign and protest and try to effect change (whether we are successful is another matter, but at least there is a chance). But no-one can protest against a Richter 9 earthquake; there is no way we can convince a tsunami not to strike.

Perhaps I am just projecting my own futility here. There isn’t much need for computer geeks or sociology students out there right now. If I went out there to help I’d be so useless as to get in the way, and besides, a long-term commitment of years is what they need (an excellent MoFi thread on the subject) rather than a few weeks of volunteering. I can’t even donate blood at the moment, thanks to a low iron count.

The only thing I’m good for, and I suspect the same goes for most of you, is the fact I’ve been able to donate money to the charities who are helping the survivors. If you haven’t yet donated money to help, then please, please do so here. Should you need any further incentive, then Armand’s family and friends are climbing Malaysia’s biggest mountain to raise funds.

I’m fully aware that the first three paragraphs of this post are a perfect demonstration of this utter uselessness. So I won’t be writing any more on the immediate aftermath of the tsunami, as there is not much more I can say, and I’d be wallowing in my own self-importance if I thought it would be of any great (or even little) consequence. I’ll just shut up, with a simple promise to help (and continue to help) those who are helping the victims.