Book recommendations from 2011

Last year's highlights in books:

• On the Philosophy front is Brian Barry's Culture and Equality. Well written, clear, and compelling.
• On the Human-Computer Interaction front is Universal Principles for Design by Lidwell, Holden, and Butler. I've not managed to give this book the attention it deserves yet as it is sitting on my desk at work, and I've been working elsewhere for a couple of months. Good examples, a clear layout, and overall good design principles for interaction design.
• On the Fiction front my highlight was the Malazan Book of the Fallen, which starts with Gardens of the Moon and culminates in The Crippled God. Sitting on my desk screaming out to be read is Orb Sceptre Throne by Esslemont, who is writing within the Malazan setting.
• Honourable mention must be given to Christopher Hitchen's final work Arguably.

Products that I want #1: a solar powered/charged Kindle

A solar powered/charged Kindle.

Think of the opportunity to provide access to education materials in the developing world. Think of their usefulness in rebuilding civilisation after an apocalypse.

Want I also want is a one off reasonable fee (free is a bit too hopefully) to have every book I own (okay I'll settle for every book purchased on Amazon) provided to me in an electronic format. I'd also like to get an electronic copy of every physical book I buy in future, again for free but I'll settle for a 50p option.

And why I'm at it..... hurry up and ditch VAT on ebooks.

Why is Genius under Store in iTunes?

The option to turn Genius on is under the 'Store' menu heading in iTunes. Why? Presumably because Genius is used to recommend songs with the desired goal being that you purchase them, hence it being a store-related activity. This categorisation seems to be based on an Apple related goal/concept of Genius, rather than a user goal/concept. Having Genius under Store makes little sense when one is thinking about Genius mixes and playlists.

I love my iPhone. iTunes? Not so much...

Of ESP and cars

Today a message on my car's dashboard read: "ESP not available".

Is this the conclusion my car has reached after some deep thinking? Is it an informative "thought for the day" from those cheeky scamps at Fiat? Or was it a poor error / feedback message that a) failed to fully exploit the display resources available to it and b) failed to give me an informative message which I could use to develop a practical course of action?

This isn't quite as bad as the obscure orange warning light that appeared on my previous car (a Vauxhall). Upon seeing the orange light I reasoned thusly: my car sometimes shows me red lights, orange lights, and green lights. I know that red lights are bad and green lights are good, or at least not bad. Red lights in my car are things I should action promptly to ensure continued safe driving, they include the "the handbrake is on, you shouldn't be trying to drive" light. Green lights inform me of the status of my car, but are things that might be beneficial. Examples include the lights that tell me my indicators are on. Orange lights, following all of my cultural and highway conditioning, must be something between red and green lights. They are important things I need to be aware of, but do not need to action immediately. My conceptual model did not match the design/feedback model, and five mails later the engine 'head' cracked and my car came to a slow, steam producing, halt.

In hindsight I should have tried to get the car company to provide recompense, or to offer me a job so that I could help them to make better products. In the meantime my current car may think that under normal operating conditions it has some form of extra sensory perception (ESP).

Mac Mini vs Windows.... Windows Mini?

I really like my Mac Mini, and I've been enjoying playing with an unfamiliar operating system. A few months on, now that I have more time, I've been swapping back to the PC a lot because of a number of tools that I have on that machine that I don't have on the Mac, and to play games. The PC wins hands down on the gaming front compared to the Mac, though the Mac has come a long way in recent years.

But I'm beginning to think that it's only the hardware that I really like about my Mac Mini. Sure Lion has a lot of neat features, a great deal to commend it, but it can't completely replace Windows for me. The Office sweet, again whilst having some neat features, really does seem to be lagging behind Microsoft Office.

The future might be dual booting the mini and mainly using it as a Windows box..

Religious affiliation on the wane in the UK

Retention rates for religious affiliation in the UK, source: British Attitudes Survey 28

The latest British Attitudes Survey report was released this month and makes for interesting reading. Amongst the noteworthy points are the continuing decline of religiosity in the UK. Fifty percent of those polled did not consider themselves to be religious, and only 14% regularly attend religious worship. The figure for non-believers is likely to be higher than the 50%, because various surveys seem to indicate that people affiliate with a religious tradition even when they are not a believer. (In Holland for example, 1 in 6 of the clergy in the mainstream protestant church are reported to be non-believers).

The graph shows the success rates of various religious affiliations at retaining people within their worldview. The Nones are in the lead with only 6% of those raised without religion becoming one of the faithful, whereas taken collectively the conversion rate to a 'none' is 40% amongst those raised within a religious tradition. The remaining 60% is entirely 'loyal' to their parental affiliation, with a certain degree of trading between religious traditions.

The numbers are set to swing further in favour of the Nones. Only around 25% of the oldest generation are unaffiliated with a religion, whereas for the youngest (adult) generation 65% of them do not affiliate with a religion. The survey's author indicates that the data doesn't show an age effect, rather a 'cohort' effect. Younger generations are less religious and they're not likely to become more religious as they get older.

If we're not a post Christian society yet, we will be in a generation or two. Which makes it all the more remarkable that we retain such oddities as reserved seats in the House of Lords for Bishops, and the government's enthusiasm to segregate children during their education based on their (or their parents') religion.

Barry on the inhumane slaughter of animals to meet religious requirements

In the news this week: moves in the Dutch parliament to ban the slaughter of unstunned animals (BBC discussion article).

A brief synopsis of the issue:

1. Slaughtering animals without stunning / rendering them unconscious beforehand is increasingly considered to be inhumane, and there is a growing move in many countries to ban the practice.
2. This is in conflict with Jewish and Muslim religious doctrine. Their counter arguments are roughly a) such laws inhibit their religious freedom, and b) their way is just as / more humane than the other proposed methods.

And a side issue that often goes unremarked: in the West there is a growing distaste of 'ritual slaughter' and a growing desire to use methods that are considered more humane. Where ritual slaughter is allowed it can be considered to be allowed on an exception basis, i.e. "we don't like this, but we realise that slaughtering animals in this way is important to some segments of our population". A problem however is that because according to at least one religious doctrine not all of the animal is fit for consumption, so the rest of it finds its way into the 'mainstream food supply chain' in order (allegedly) to make the practice economically viable. This means that people who are against the practice of religious slaughter are financially supporting said practices. There have been moves at the EU level for meat not slaughtered to a standard considered humane by the mainstream to be labelled as such so that it can be identified by the discerning shopper. Apparently such moves have been resisted on the grounds that it would inhibit religious freedom. It is not clear why this should weigh more than the freedom of others to choose not to support practices that they consider inhumane.

Anyway, on with Brian Barry and what he had to say on the matter (p45):

"...we must insist on the crucial difference between a denial of equal opportunities to some group [..] and a choice some people make out of that from a set of equal opportunities [..] as a result of certain beliefs. [...] We all constantly impose restrictions on ourselves in choosing among the options that are legally available to us according to our beliefs about what is right, polite, decent, prudent, professionally appropriate, and so on."

and (p45),

"Assuming that killing animals without prior stunning falls below the prevailing standards for the humane treatment of animals, the point is that those who are not prepared to eat meat from animals killed in any other way cannot eat meat without violating these minimum standards. It is not the law but the facts (assuming the facts bear it out) of neurophysiology that make this so. The law may condone the additional suffering of animals killed without prior stunning, but if it does we should be clear that what it is doing is accommodating the tastes of a subset of carnivores, not observing the demands of religious freedom."

(p35)

"Consider, for example, the way in which people's beliefs may make some job opportunities unattractive to them. Pacifists will presumably regard a career in the military as closed to them. Committed vegetarians are likely to feel the same about jobs in slaughterhouses or butcher's shops. Similarly, if legislation requires that animals should be stunned before being killed, those who cannot as a result of their religious beliefs eat such meat will have to give up eating meat altogether."

From Barry (2001). Culture and Equality. Polity Press.