Wanted: Wingman

Wanted: Tech Support Wingman For Student Skills Competition

Owing to a change in career plans by the previous position holder, a vacancy has opened for a Tech Support Wingmanf for the 2007 Student Skills Competition. The successful applicant will ideally be a confident computer user and a good communicator, and be comfortable with working in a backstage environment. First-hand experience of the Student Skills Competition would be an advantage.

Your role will be in assisting Dan Q with the running of the technical elements of the Student Skills Competition, including: shouting at students who run through the “forbidden zone” between the projector and the back of the screen, shouting at students who try to make ammendments to their presentations 5 minutes before they’re performing, shouting at students who give us useless cue points, shouting at students who write their entire presentation in Powerpoint using Comic Sans MS and with stupid fucking pointless sound effects and animations. Oh, and also helping to run the thing. It’s fun, honest.

The contract is for a fixed-term position covering exactly two days: Monday 19th and Wednesday 21st. There is a token payment available, but you’ll be working mostly for love and maybe a book token, not money (although winning teams may offer to buy you a beer for your help, too).

Apply or ask questions by blog comments or by e-mail. The closing date for applications is midday on Friday 16th March.

Invisible Girl

Last night I met the most invisible person ever. She was sat in the Ship & Castle with some of the regulars when I introduced myself. "Yeah, we’ve already met," she said. Some way later into a conversation, we’d determined:

  • I’d seen her before at the Ship & Castle, and looked right through her.

  • She’d served me breakfast a few days ago, at the Treehouse.

  • And we did some voluntary work together when we were both students.

Even after all of this, I wasn’t sure I recognised her until I went home and found a photo with her in! I apologised profusely, but she genuinely didn’t care that she’s seemingly able to turn invisible: in actual fact, she seems to like and has come to expect it. We made a comparison to that Buffy episode where lots of people ignore this girl and she turns invisible and starts killing people. She promised not to start killing people. That’s kind-of reassuring. She doesn’t look particularly strong, but I don’t want to get on the wrong side of anybody who I can’t see.

Personally, I’d hate being so unobvious: I love being able to be "seen" when I want to be, so it was hard for me to understand the attraction. Perhaps she’s just resigned to it after decades of being ignored.

Treehouse Breakfast; Q (Again); Troma Night

Claire, Jimmy, Paul and I just had breakfast at The Treehouse. They were doing an "all you can eat" Fair Tade buffet – basically; heaps of muesli, organic bananas, breads, and other hippy goodies. It was nice to do something different, but I’m not sure it was worth the fiver it cost.

Overheard a conversation from the table next to us, somebody saying something I don’t think I’ve ever heard anybody say before: "That’s the trouble with Aberystwyth: there’s always so much to do!" There’s something you don’t hear every day.

In other news, amongst the many wonderful comments we’ve received in response to the blog post about Claire and I’s name change, there’s a particularly nasty one that’s appeared, too. Sadly the sender has chosen to remain anonymous (Why do people do that? I’ve never really understood…) but the most likely suspect’s pretty obvious anyhow. Anyway: just wanted to say thank you to everybody who’s commented on the name change, whether on the blog post, by IRC, over the phone, in person, by text message, or whatever else: it’s great to get some feedback. Also thanks to the various people who’ve been appropriately "fixing" our presences in various wikis!

Troma Night tonight is at The Cottage. Usual drill.

A New Generation Of Grafitti

For the second time today, I saw some grafitti which contained a myspace URL. Is this what all the cool kids are doing these days? It’s just that it seems to me, with many of these pages containing full names and photographs, that this might be a bad strategy when you’re doing something illegal. Just a thought.

Received my first bit of post addressed to my new name, today: a card from my mum (with the right address this time). The card reads "9 today", but it’s been adapted so that it’s instead "q today", and generally contains congratulations for and admiration of Claireand I and our unusual and unexpected name change.

Additional: Apparently we recieved a a second bit of post addressed to "Q" today: a bottle of champagne from Ruth and JTA. Thank you both very much, that’s very sweet of you.

Q

A couple of deeds poll later, and Claire and I are half-way to having changed our surnames. Our new surname: Q. I hereby declare this blog post to be the official FAQ of the Dan/Claire name change. So there, Ms Q.

1. You’ve changed your names?

Yes, we’ve changed our names. I’m now “Dan Q”, and she’s “Claire Elizabeth Q”. We’ve signed deeds poll and it turns out that’s all you need to do.

2. How do you spell your new name?

Q. The letter Q. Just Q. That’s it.

3. Like Q from Star Trek or Q from James Bond?

No, like Q, the set of all rational numbers.

4. Why did you change your names?

For some time now we’d discussed changing our names so that we had the same surname. We’ve always liked the idea that when you become a family of your own, distinct from your parents, you should be entitled to choose a new surname for yourselves.

5. So this is like you “tying the knot”, then?

Not really. But if you were waiting for us to get married someday, this is the closest thing you’ll probably ever get to it (unless we have a party sometime to commemorate being together), so if it helps you to think of it like that, yes.

6. Why did you pick the letter “Q” as a surname?

It’s a cool letter. It’s uncommon, quirky, and is always followed by a U. Except now. Other letters considered and rejected for the role include A, B, C, P, T, X, Z, and Y.

7. Why did you pick a surname that neither of you already had?

Fair’s fair. Plus, we wanted something that’s pretty much unique. Apart from an 80s singer whose stage name is Stacey Q, we don’t know of anybody who has our surname.

8. WTF?

No. Q.

9. You know how much work this is going to take, right?

Tell me about it. It took me ages just to work out how to change my name in GMail. Now I’ve got to get certificates and sort out my bank, my other bank, my credit card, the DVLA, the passport agency, the electoral roll, the utility and service companies…

Yeah, we know it’ll be a lot of work.

10. Database administrators will hate you, you know.

We’ll hate them too, if their regexen don’t support single-character surnames. By the end of the year, I predict that we’ll be in at least three or four databases as Q-space-space-space. Not to mention a few places as Que or Queue. Fuck ’em.

11. How did your families take the name change?

Predictably to good. My mum laughed. My dad laughed, eventually. Her dad immediately assumed we were trying to commit some kind of bank fraud, and then laughed. The eldest of my two sisters sent me a text message reading simply “Disowned!” So, pretty well. And some of them actually had some useful practical advice about stuff.

12. Are you changing your signatures, too?

Yes, but we’re not putting them online, for obvious reasons.

13. Does this mean we’re allowed to say ‘DanQ’ in a silly voice instead of thank you now?

If you insist. You were allowed to say it before, of course, too. But it wasn’t funny then.

If there are any questions I’ve not covered, let me know!

The questions below were asked after this blog post was originally published.

14. Why not X?

It’s been done before. To death. Malcolm X and many of his supporters, for example. Plus it’s a little predictable. Q is a far cooler surname than X.

15. Did you, in your decision process, consider the effect this surname might have on your children?

Yes. In the event that we have children, they are likely to – being children – hate or be embarrassed their parents for one thing or another no matter what we do. This way, we’re giving the hypothetical sprogs either (a) something they can genuinely dislike us for or (b) something cool and unusual that they’ll be proud of. It all depends on their outlook, and I’m sure that there would be times in their lives that they would love, and times that they would loathe, their unusual surname.

If they are particularly bothered by it, they will be able to change it when they’re 16, whether or not we approve (although in all likelihood, we won’t care either way).

16. You do realise you’ve called yourselves after an abbreviation, don’t you? [“Q” = “question” in many FAQs]

I do now.

17. And if you adopt/have a child, please can you call it something like Francis Adam? / Have you thought of changing your first name to ‘Snooker’ or maybe ‘Fuh’ / etc.

Thankfully, we haven’t yet brainstormed all of the possible funny names that could precede “Q”. Keep them coming, but don’t expect them all to appear in the Q FAQ.

18. How is it pronounced? Is it “queue” or “qwuh” or what?

It’s pronounced like “queue” (and, I suppose, “cue”): the name of the letter Q.

19. Can you legally have a number or a punctuation mark as part of your name?

The short answer: No.

The longer answer: Within the UK, there are certain restrictions on naming (at least, if you’re a UK resident). Firstly, you must have at least two names. Secondly, your surname must consist only of letters and (sometimes) simple punctuation like apostrophes (O’Reilly) and hyphens (for multi-barrelled surnames). And it’s not allowed to be blasphemous. Your first name must not imply that you have a title (e.g. Sir, Duke, Lord, King, etc.). Pope might be allowed, but I’m not sure.

It’s a pity, or I’d have probably been Huntl3y long before now. The 3 is silent.

20. Try and be interesting without adopting pointless name changes.

It’s not phrased as a question, anonymous coward, but I’ll address this one anyway:

To state that our name change is pointless or is an attempt to draw attention is to misunderstand our reasons. The choice of name certainly is attention-seeking (let’s face it, it’s a damn cool name!), but the fact that we have changed it is not.

I’d love to hear why you think this, though, if only you’d care to tell us who you are.

Further Reading

A Determinist Atheist’s Story

I find it amazing that people look at the chaos and the beauty of the world and somehow come to the conclusion that there is a god. I know that sounds like it’s backwards, but I mean it. The other day I was watching a spectacular sunset. The sun hung low in the sky and painted a picture of orange, pink, and red across the wispy clouds, and I found myself thinking, “Wow; that’s absolutely beautiful. How cool is it that we’ve evolved to be able to appreciate that?” People have been appreciating the colours of sunsets for thousands of years, of course, and it’s no less amazing since we came to the realisation that the Earth is not the centre of the universe (what a stir that kicked up amongst the devout!), that the picture painted by a sunset is just a result of atmospheric effects, and that our ability to enjoy things which are aesthetically pleasing is the result of a long line of evolutionary changes in our long-distant history. I didn’t need to think about any of those things to enjoy that uncommonly pleasing moment during my walk home from work. Most folks don’t . You could probably just about put a man on the moon without thinking about the relativistic implications of non-geocentrism, never mind the living of your day-to-day-life.

A friend of mine wrote a post in her blog (sorry; she’s protected it, most of you can’t read it) a little while ago about how she’d come, over the course of her life, to her current beliefs. This kicked off a few dozen comments including one from me, promising that I’d write something similar in the near future. This is it.

My upbringing, for the most part, was very much secular. My parents seemed to be careful not to try to overly influence me or my sisters in any particular religious direction, giving us a childhood which was, to all intents and purposes, agnostic, with as little bias as they could manage. This is best expressed, I think, through an anecdote: I remember quite vividly a discussion that took place between one of my sisters – quite young at the time – and my mum. My sister came into the kitchen where my mum and I were sat and asked, “Where do rabbits come from?”

“Well,” said my mum, in her most matter-of-fact way, “Do you remember how we were talking about how mummies and daddies make babies?” At this point, she had assumed that this was going to be an elaboration of the “birds and bees” talk they’d had some time ago. Except about rabbits and… er… rabbits.

“No, no, no,” my sister replied, “I know all that. I mean: where did the first rabbits come from?” This was, of course, a whole different topic.

“Where did the first rabbits come from?” my mum repeated, “We’re not completely sure; but there are two main schools of thought about it. Some people think that rabbits came from other animals which were a lot like rabbits, but not quite; and they came from animals that were not quite like them, and so on, until eventually; a long long time ago, every animal came from tiny little animals that were a lot like germs. Some other people think that rabbits – and everything else; even people – were created on purpose by someone super-powerful, who they call ‘God’.”

I was impressed. This was a basic summary of the widest possible views of many evolutionist and creationist philosophies, summarised into a couple of sentences that a precocious primary school child could comprehend. My mum had successfully condensed the beliefs of over 90% of the world’s population into something that made sense on any level; and, better yet, she’d done so without needing to superimpose her own beliefs on the top.

My sister, evidently, was also impressed. She stood quite still for some time, contemplating what she’d been told and visibly going over these two concepts in her mind. Eventually, she piped up, “I think that rabbits came down from the sky like bogies from God.” And that was that: she’d been given the space to make up her own beliefs from the evidence given. Undoubtedly these beliefs have changed over her years (I’m pretty sure she no longer subscribes to “Mucusism”), as she’s had the chance to be exposed to more evidence from both these major camps, and probably from some systems of belief that don’t directly agree with either one or the other. I’m sure if she’d asked my mum what she believed, she’d have got an honest and reasoned answer. As it happens, it’s rather irrelevant.

We’re all born atheists: we have no concept (or the mental faculties to comprehend) of deities, and therefore we have no belief in them. Later; at the first point we discuss religion, or question the possibility of a supernatural creator, we become momentarily agnostic, and then start to form a set of religious beliefs of our own. This is based on the evidence we are presented with, and our young and malleable minds can easily be shaped by well-meaning individuals like our parents and teachers. My primary school was typical of others in our area and at that time: we sang hymns, had prayers, even had “scripture” lessons (which were later replaced by religious education when the school adopted a more secularist attitude), and were exposed to other elements of Christian mythology. Like most rational people of any age, I came to understand children’s’ stories like Noah’s ark to be exaggerated (at best), and probably just metaphorical or entirely imaginary. However, primary school did expose me to a peer group laden with children already indoctrinated into a belief system that I found to be complicated, confusing, and un-necessary. Arguments for the existence of a supreme being, woven into stories and songs, challenged me with questions that I didn’t yet have the philosophical depth-of-thought to be able to contradict. Simply put; I wasn’t sure what to believe. And that’s just fine.

There’s no problem with agnosticism, especially amongst children (who, lets face it, are given a simplified model of the world in all senses anyway – a necessity for their survival and a means to provide them with valuable information without having to resort to unanswerable questions). But amongst a group of 10-year-olds who haven’t yet learned to question the “facts” given to them by their evangelistic parents, it’s difficult to be the one to say, “I can’t see any reason that God has to exist at all.” Many of the most popular arguments for the existence of God are so simple that a child can explain them, and the reason for that is simple: they’re not very good arguments (it’s sad that so many theists continue to use these flawed arguments into the adulthood, unwilling to listen to their faults). Nonetheless, it’s not easy to defend an agnostic viewpoint when you’re unready for the kinds of arguments you’ll come up against. In hindsight, these (rare) playground discussions would have been easier had my parents brought me up as an atheist, rather than simply areligious. However, that – I think – wouldn’t have given me the open-mindedness to actually investigate these beliefs that others held, which, in turn, has ultimately made me surer of my current beliefs.

By the time I was 14 I’d formulated a well thought-out set of philosophies in my mind; primarily an atheistic one, with sufficient unanswered questions and seemingly equally-viable explanations to be agnostic on particular issues. It was at about this point that I realised that the idea of an omnipotent, omniscient deity that is concerned with human behaviour was completely ludicrous to me. I had no difficulty seeing the similarities between belief in a god and belief in, say, Santa Claus, or with the fact that while neither is entirely disprovable, this does not mean that existence and non-existence are equally likely. It’s about this point that I became particularly fascinated with religion in general. I tried to learn as much as possible about as many as possible, and I began to love hearing about what people believed and why. Content with my own model of the world – with its few unanswered questions themselves not requiring God (and certainly not the God described by any religion I’d ever come across, with all their hypocrisies and illogical arguments) to fill in the blanks – I turned to trying to understand others.

I read a lot about religion and about philosophy. I became familiar with the major arguments used by theists for their beliefs, and by atheists for their disbelief (although I’ve always found the latter to be less necessary, just as arguments against the existence of anything are less necessary by scientific theory – the burden of proof comes from the hypothesis of existence). And everything I read confirmed more and more for me how illogical and unnecessary this image of a god was, most of all a god anything like those that the major religions subscribe to. And, gradually, over the coming years, I came to iron out many of the other quirks in my beliefs (by, for example, finding myself a determinist without tripping over any of the usual, often theistic in nature, arguments against it).

The only significant change to my religious views of late has been a reduction of my tolerance for the activities of others as a result of their religion. While I’ve previously been very open to other people’s beliefs, not caring what other people believe (however wrong I think they are), I’ve more recently begun to see how dangerous religion can be when used as an excuse for some awful things. While I don’t believe it’s true to say that most wars are started over religion, it is true to say that religion provides an excuse for such behaviour. And somehow, lately, religion has become something that’s taboo to argue against.

In a legal case a few years ago by a San Diego student against his school – who had banned him from wearing a t-shirt that carried an anti-homosexual message at school – the student made his case not on the grounds of freedom of expression but on the grounds of freedom of religion. Had he tried under the former, he would undoubtedly have failed, because while it’s okay to express whatever opinions you like, the court would have said, it’s also okay for schools to maintain order and a civil atmosphere. But under an argument of religion, he was far more likely to be untouchable – in the current socio-political climate, no judge wants to be seen to infringe upon somebody’s religious views. Small cases like these help to enshrine (hah!) religion into a status where it can’t even be criticised, even where it’s used as justification for some of the most disgusting acts of genocide, war, hatred, and terrorism. It’s a big scary world, and while it might still be as big and scary without the fundamentalist theists, at least we’d have removed from people an irrational excuse for their actions. And meanwhile, the majority of people still brainwash children with disputable beliefs that they haven’t got the cognitive abilities to question.

I’m grateful to my parents for giving me the chance to be whoever I wanted to be.

So; there’s a 10-minute summary of how I came to the beliefs I currently hold. Perhaps in another couple of decades I’ll write it again. In the meantime, I’ll happily argue the non-existence of God with any of you until the sun goes down, but I’d still prefer to hear what it is that you believe, because, for the time being, religion still interests me far more than fighting over it does.

Further Reading

Some stuff other people have written, that I think you should read:

Away For The Weekend

Apparently I’m giving a presentation at 9am tomorrow morning in Keele about a bit of software I’ve been working on. Suppose I ought to pull my finger out and decide what I’m going to say.

In any case, this of course means that Troma Night this week will be hosted by Paul (if it’s on at all – apparently lots of folks are out of town or otherwise engaged).

In my absence, here’s some things to keep you amused:

  • Andy‘s put a fab lateral thinking puzzle on his blog. Shouldn’t tax an experienced puzzler too hard, but it’s good for keeping your brain warm for a few minutes, at least.

  • Think love is too complicated? I was tickled recently by the very charming Simple Guide to Relationships ("I said simple, not easy!"). Smart tips for all kinds of relationships.

  • There’s a new Japanese device that plans to revolutionise ear-picking: no more of the "fumbling around with an ear bud, trying not to puncture your eardrum." Only in Japan could somebody invent this and not get laughed at.

  • And finally, The Daily Mail have a fantastic interview and pictures from the skydiver who fell 15,000ft without a working parachute and landed on thorny bushes the other week. He recounts accepting his fate and "waving bye to the helmet-mounted camera" once he reached about 550ft. Cool and then some.

Have a great weekend, y’all.

Philosophical Health Check

Came across a survey that was floating around the blogosphere, which attempts to challenge you to think about the tensions in your own personal life philosophy. It’s pretty simplistic, and it doesn’t seem to have been designed to tell you your beliefs are wrong or hypocritical so much as to make you think about the questions that your particular outlook creates.

So, being amused by it for awhile – and being me – I wrote an online version of it [update: link dead]. There are only 30 questions, so it shouldn’t take you long, and I’d love to hear your feedback in the comments. Take the test!

Armadillo Run

Over the last few days, I’ve mostly been distracted by Armadillo Run, a fabulous little shareware game (Windows only… for now) somewhat reminiscent of The Incredible Machine. It’s great fun, and the download is under 2MB, which makes it a reasonable download even if you’re on a modem (who does that, these days?).

Each level challenges you to get a rolling “armadillo” to maintain a position somewhere in space, by hooking up ropes, poles, cloth, metal sheets, rubber panels, elasticated ropes, and rockets, and modifying them with greater or lesser tension or by setting them to self-destruct on a timer. When you “run” your proposed solution, these objects interact with one another and with the armadillo in order to try to solve the puzzle.

The thing that makes it notably different from The Incredible Machine, apart from the very powerful physics engine – mentioned above – is the huge degree of flexibility you have in implementing a working solution. In The Incredible Machine, you had in your toolbox a set number of varied “parts” – everything from candles to monkeys. While there are less different “parts” in Armadillo Run, each “part” has a cost, and you must spread your budget accordingly and try to get a high score by saving as much money as possible. It’s remarkably cool, because this means that there are a huge number of solutions to any given puzzle.

Give it a go. I’ve got the full version if you’ve played the demo and would like to try a few of the actual levels before committing your £10 to buying a copy.

Abnib Breaks Stuff, Fixes Stuff, Keeps Ticking

As you might have seen, the new version of abnib went live this afternoon. Just so I don’t keep getting the same comments over and over:

  • Right now, it’s a little fixated on the PST time zone. I’m not sure why this is, but I’ll fix this soon.

  • For some reason, it’s silently rejecting all applications for a username and password.

  • There’s no link to Abnib Gallery.

What’s new?

  • If you’re logged in (hah!) you can block posts by author. Later there may be other ways to filter and prioritise posts.

  • It automatically refreshes as new posts come in. No longer do you need to keep whacking "refresh" every time you get bored: if you’ve got JavaScript enabled, it’ll quietly check for new posts in the background and pick them up and make them appear on the page.

  • It integrates with the as-yet unreleased new Troma Night website, so you can see where and when the next Troma Night is at all times. Yeah, and this updates itself without refreshing too.

  • It’s prettier. I liked the old theme, but I know it wasn’t to everybody’s tastes, and the "it’s ugly" people were louder than the "it’s pretty" people.

  • A couple of extra features that you can’t see because you can’t log in yet, either. Ahem. Will fix that soon, then.

What Did Matt Leave This Time?

Last time Matt visited, he left his mobile phone charger. It wasn’t all bad: it gave him an excuse to come back again.

This time, he left his razor and a can of deodorant. That’s all we’ve found so far; but we’re convinced that he’s trying to move in by installments. This gives him an excuse to visit again (to pick them up), when we anticipate he’ll leave three things, and so on in that fashion until he’s living with us.

In other news, I’ve just got back from an unexpected drinking session with random socialists.

Scotland Revisited

Wind conditions were better the second day, but not on Cairngorm, so we took a drive out to The Lecht where we were at least able to get some skiing in. We booked my sister’s friend Jemma and Claire into ski school, which gave Jemma her "first time" taster and gave Claire the confidence she needed to keep going at it (after the difficulties she’d had last year), and she managed to take on – very successfully – one of The Lecht’s rough intermediate runs by the end.

Then, having travelled South from Aviemore to get to The Lecht in the first place, we just kept on driving, getting back to Preston late last night. This revises our schedule a little: we’ll be leaving here after lunch and back in Aberystwyth this evening; probably in time for Troma Night at Paul‘s.

I’d forgotten how beautiful some of the Cairngorm-crossing mountain roads can be. Long, empty, winding, unlit roads surrounded as far as the eye can see by long, flat-bottomed valleys and snow-capped peaks. Fantastic.

Mobile In Scotland

I’m posting this from my mobile phone from a youth hostel in Scotland. I’m sure you’ll forgive me for any predictive-text-based typos!

Snow conditions are reasonable, but gale-force winds closed the mountain so we haven’t actually managed to do any skiing yet. Instead we’ve spent today cantering about the countryside on horseback, firing arrows from bows, and climbing around a series of Aberdyfi-like high ropes courses. Rope burns aside, all great fun; and odds are good we’ll get to hit the slopes tomorrow.

Two very strange dreams recently. In the first, I was a human embodiment of the tree of knowledge from the Genesis story (yes, a dream in which I had memories of being a tree), come to Earth to warn people of a coming end time, but only a handful of people believed me. In the second, friends and I were at a comedy show at which Hayley was performing. She was extremely good. Then, later, I ended up having sex with Jen.

Comments that say I’m fucked up very welcome and already anticipated.

Edited 17th Feb: updated on a PC to add links and fix formatting.