Mortality

So usually, I live a life where I feel as though there is some vague semblence of having some control over it. But sometimes, some events occur and then I am rudely reminded of the stark mortality that surrounds me at every turn.

Perhaps I might be oversensitive to some regard, or perhaps there is more that I know that I am not letting on to the rest of the world. But some times, when the feeling strikes me, I feel that I know what is going to happen, despite not really knowing/able to prove what is truly going to occur.

It has been a long day of sorts. I am starting to become weary as the day drags out longer; each time I lie in my bed, I don't really want to get up and get things done. Some call it senioritis; I call it lackadaisical.

Looking for a new drive in life---I guess that is one way of putting it. Perhaps the permonitions that I have had are completely and absolutely false, and that things are not as bad as I always make them out to be.

Perhaps.

Autograph Book

So unlike most times when I would be leaving a place, I am not asking people to write in my autograph book (yes, I am that old to have such a book). It is not because I don't like people writing in that anymore, but that it becomes increasingly socially unacceptable for the practice to continue. That coupled with the ``hi-bye'' relationships that I have with most of the college/university populace, it makes it even more silly to get people to write into that book of mine.

And I think I probably didn't bring it over either, since I have more or less planned not to get this done ahead of time.

But why an autograph book? Many who know what I am talking about will think that it is populated by all kinds of ``nonsense'' which mean nothing say 20 years from when it was written. Yes, I am referring to the myriad of ``personal'' information like one's favourite dog/cat/camel/llama/colour and other mundane things like that. Well, actually, my book has few if not none of those crap. Most of the writings in the book are inspiring in some sense, and sometimes when I feel really down, those words are among the most uplifting that I can get my hands on. I'm probably one of the few people left from that era who has kept a ``proper'' autograph book that I am proud to show to people whom I trust.

And of course, I digressed too much. The question, ``why an autograph book'' can be seen as a means in which I literally obtain feedback from people. It does sound rather strange, doesn't it, soliciting feedback from people about my state of affairs. But it is rather interesting, since sometimes the people write something that is much different from what they act, and through these words one can sometimes tell who is indeed a friend and who is just pretending to be a ``friend''.

Oh the vagaries of life! Reading the articles in the book brings back so many random memories about the people, most of which I have not seen since then. Like memories go, some are good, some are bad. The few that are truly interesting are from [surprise surprise] my teachers back in the day. I guess their words are more delightful to read because they have seen much of the world as compared to the bunch of us who were still young students then, and thus have a wealth of wisdom that is not easily found among my peers. One trend that I do realise is that as time goes on and the people whom I request [politely] to write in my book get older, their words get more meaningful and personal, almost as though through magic my peers have decided to shed their exterior persona projected upon the world and to communicate with me on a personal level.

Life can be a pain if you choose to live without any support at all, be it friends or family. If you are that one person living in this world by yourself, perhaps you might realise this truth sooner so that you won't fall into the abyss of oblivion where your sanity decides to take a long hike down 20,000 leagues under the sea.

Common Law

So here's a little something to think about. Most people, be they ``normal people'' or ``technogeeks'' will tell anyone who cares to listen that their 3-year-old computer system has really outdated software that keeps getting larger and larger, and perhaps they need to reinstall everything ever so often just to make sure that the computer ``still works''. This demonstrates the basic premise of software, namely the need to constantly re-examine the software that has been written, and perhaps even to write a newer version of it when the time comes that the kludges are no longer working as well or if the said kludges are also less maintainable.

Sounds nice and good and commonsensical.

Now, consider the legal/penal system in many of the world's countries today. For a large part, there is the concept of Common Law, which basically refers to law that exists because the courts ruled a certain way. However, for the part of law that is not Common Law, there are many statutes/rules/codes written to govern what is and is not permissible, including the punishments in cases of infraction. So, one way that the legal system works is to rely on the codified law to judge cases, and where there are precedents for a particular case, they will be studied and then the concepts of Common Law will apply, perhaps with the legislative arm of the government creating new laws to ensure that the outcomes thus specified are generalised into laws. These newly created laws will, in principle, help to clarify what is and is not permissible under the eyes of the law, based on the arguments that were put forth from the arbitration of the case.

So far, I have not said anything that is out of the ordinary yet. But now comes the kicker.

If one thinks of the law as a computer program that determines what is acceptable and what is unacceptable, and that the society's people are the running components of the entire ``computer system'', then the analogy will be clear that the law itself ought to be engineered the way software is engineered, i.e. there should be some limited time before the program (or in this case, the law) be re-written so as to reduce the kludges and other gunk that has gathered over the years and to ensure that the law is easier to enforce, thus reducing the latency between when someone first invokes the law and when the matter gets resolved in the courts.

A succinct version of the law has many obvious advantages. The citizenry are aware of exactly what they are allowed and disallowed to do, which means that the allegations of police officers abusing their police power and/or charging people in custody under the myriad of possible crimes [that the impounded never truly knew] will be reduced. The law, being much smaller in numbers of governing statues/codes/regulations, will be more easily maintained and thus have much fewer contradictions as a whole than before. Obsolete pieces of law that made sense at that point in time (like segregation for example) can also be easily identified and discarded to make the law more relevant to daily living.

Unfortunately, it is almost impossible to do what I have just described, despite having the aforementioned benefits. The biggest issue here is that of inertia, and that of transition. Inertia comes about because there are thousands of lawyers out there who have spent much of their lives wheeling and dealing under the current law, and a change of the law to something less complicated will most likely to be met with serious objection because it degrades the status of a lawyer from that of a modern day warrior to just a peon who happens to know a little more than the ordinary person on the law. But transition will prove to be the bigger problem---there will be a vacuum of governance when the old code of law is being revised into the concise form; which version ought one to follow if the new version of the law looks siginificantly different from the old one? The last big issue why the law will not change in the way that I describe is that the modern society, despite its claims to democracy, is not truly egalitarian the way many would have envisioned it. All people are created equal in terms of political and social representation, except some people happen to be more equal than others and thus have a vested interest in some of the laws that were written. Thus, a creation of a concise version of the law may mean the end of special provision for various corporations/individuals who have made use of the law to their own gains through careful manipulating.

So what has this little thing show us? There might be ways in which we can make things better, but under various guises of ``equality'' and other liberal-sounding jargon, we find that the system our forebears have left us are the ones that we are forced to work with, whether or not we like them.

Scapegoats

People are lazy. This is particularly true no matter where one looks. From the rank-and-file to the ``head honchos'' of the company, everyone is lazy. Usually this is not a problem, since people who are lazy tend to be a little innovative and get the job done in the end. The problem comes when something bad happens, and the people's innovation fall into the unethical realm.

Yes, I am talking about the issue of scapegoats.

Scapegoats are the most unlucky of the lot, being the ones chosen to take the fall for whatever blunder was made, whether or not they were involved with the matter at hand. I have been made a scapegoat before, and I can assure you that it is not the most comfortable feeling ever. The worst feeling comes when there's absolutely no one to appeal to to redress the malignment---it is literally the shittiest situation to ever be in.

Why talk about scapegoats now, one might wonder. There were several recent happenings which caused quite a ruckus to the denizens of the cluster, and as part of what happened, two not-so-guilty parties who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time got ``set-up'' to take the fall of the actions of the nameless few who were more flagrant violators of the unspoken rule. Sure, one can say ``tough luck'' to these two folks and then laugh it off over a beer on how unlucky they were, but think about this from the perspective of those who were investigating. What had prompted them to go down this route? Why did they choose to ``mark'' these two people instead of hunting down the myriad who had done actions more unspeakable than the alleged violations that the two were slapped with?

I think the reason is straightforward. The powers that be just needed scapegoats. Think about it this way. If the wrong-doing were something that many people had done, would it make much sense for an investigator to expend all the effort just to bring all these people to ``justice''? If you were untainted by the modern news network, I think that your answer would be a resounding ``no''. In fact, if you were somewhat rational, you would think that all you needed to do was to just catch hold of that one poor sod that didn't manage to get away and make him/her a lesson for the others to learn from.

I am not making allegations in malice---I am just using this story as an example of how our current society works. In the past, I truly believed that justice could be impartially dealt with, the facts will point the way and the guilty will pay for their misdemeanour, while the innocent will be freed from all persecution. Unfortunately, the world doesn't quite work that way. The person with the most money wins, whether or not he/she was in the right or wrong, while the person with the least money is destined to lose, unless somehow the miscarriage of justice is blatant enough that turning a blind eye to the matter is impossible.

We live in a time of fear and confusion. Left and right we are bombarded by advertisement and paid propaganda on what is ``right'' and what is ``wrong'', sometimes with wholly illogical consequences. Life used to be simpler---to live a good life, one just lived a life that was free of ``sin'' (for some definition of ``sin''), but in this time and age where the original concept of morality is lacking and ad hoc, there is no way that a normal person can lead a life that is truly free of injustices/wrong-doings.

At the end of the day, people just live to avoid being made scapegoats, and to earn enough money to stave away the rich vultures circling overhead, ready to swoop down when you are unguarded, and to take your carrion back to their growing pile of increasing success, while you get trampled all over the place, never truly finding the voice and conviction necessary to prove your innocence once and for all.

``Herd'' Mentality

The other sad thing about life that one realises as one gets older is the paradoxical lack of control over affairs, despite being in a better position to actually make good use of the resources at one's disposal. Think about it this way. When one was still a child, the environment that one interacted with was much smaller; there's mainly the home and the school, and possibly with the extended family members. Unfortunately, as one grows up, one's social circles increase in size, and slowly [but surely] one will find that control is utterly lost.

But I think I need to be careful with what I say. When I say ``control'', I mean being able to influence things and make things move along through personal intervention. It is clear then when one is still a child, the environment allows much control to be exerted, even if one did not realise that one could do that to one degree or another. Sadly, once one is aware of such abilities, the environment has changed and there is little opportunity to demonstrate/use one's abilities.

Part of the reason why this is the case is the cultivation of the ``herd'' mentality. As children begin their lives interacting with the world, they do not understand the concept of conformance, and thus present a more care-free outlook towards life; they are also insulated from the vagaries of life and thus have the almost-perfect conditions to be the way they are. But fast forward a few more years, and one finds that the child's individuality and antics associated with it are not as tolerated as before, and the child learns how to conform, either through physical conformance (like wearing uniforms/dressing in a certain way), or even psychological conformance (like creationism is the only truth to how life came about, and not evolutionism). By the time the child reaches young adult-hood, the damage has been done---he/she has developed the ``herd'' instinct, never truly wanting to explore the borders beyond what the ``herd'' mentality dictates.

For the most part, at least, from the perspective of governing bodies, ``herd'' mentality is a good trait for the masses, since it makes policing and governing them easy. However, from the social development standpoint, I doubt that having only ``herd'' mentality is sufficient for a society to progress beyond the level that it is already at. Think about it in another way, if everyone were to only follow the crowd and not innovate, life would not be the way it is now because the inventions that we have grown to rely on would cease to exist at such an early stage because no one would be willing to challenge the social norm and create something that the world has never seen before.

But what has all of this got to do with the control that I talk about before? Well, simply put, the rejection of the ``herd'' mentality will actuallly allow more control to be weaved back into a person's life. What do I mean, you might ask. If one does not readily conform to society's wants, then one is able to look at things from a critical perspective and decide if the said social norms are worth following. Here is an example of what I mean. Take a look at the UK currently. It is of no doubt that the UK has developed a culture of surveillance on all of its people, and not just the ones who are suspects to a case. In fact, you would be photographed by no less than 3 cameras while just walking along the street in London. What has happened here? This is the ``herd'' mentality being in effect---most of the masses do not understand the mumbo-jumbo that the people in power say, and due to their ``herd'' mentality, decide ``for themselves'' that what the government does is good for them and thus no one makes any noise/comment about the ramifications of having such an extensive surveillance network on all the people, whether you are suspicious of committing a crime or not. Of course, the other way of looking at this will be that dissenters to the plan were secretly incarcerated and thus prevented from airing their views, but this is already bordering on the line of speculation and I do not think that it is a worthwhile direction to take since conspiracy theories are just so easy to make.

I am not advocating that people go against their governments. I am saying that people should reject blindly following anything and to think for themselves critically, evaluating within their understanding framework if the said ideas are indeed worthy of being followed. That trait, unfortunately, is not readily seen in most people because their either do not care, or do not know how to care (i.e. cannot think critically). We live in interesting/terrifying times, and the longer that we do not wrest control of our lives and thoughts from the ``herd'', the more injustices can occur through the inactions of many.

Human Social Interaction

The strange sad thing about human social interactions is this: despite being the ``social animals'' that we claim to be, the concept of being ``social'' itself is suspect. For instance, most of the interactions that we have with most people tend to be of the shallow sort, also known as the ``hi-bye'' type of social interaction. Not that this is wrong, but I find that this is rather counterintuitive to what one would normally associate with the semantics of being ``social''.

To a large degree, the increased use of technology in both communications and transportation can be considered the real reasons why this phenomenon is happening. Long ago, few would travel farther than their immediate surroundings, since the relatively egalitarian society (and lack of the ability to travel!) meant that most of what a person would require to live on is available there. Fast forward a few hundred years, and we find ourselves in the current situation, where people are flying all over the world conducting business and recreation, where unless one is from a really backwater country, there is a substantial number of goods that are available are from other parts of the world, imported through the extensive transportation network that took a few hundred years to build up and maintain.

But what has all these got to do with why people are less socially intimate with each other? Well, the answer is rather straightforward---there's just too many people to meet, too many places to go and too many things to work on to be able to invest the time (and other opportunity costs!) necessary to establish a more intimate social relationship other than the ``hi-bye'' variety. Gone were the days when neighbours would actually visit each other just to talk about all things great and small, gone are the days where people actually knew who were living around them. Each household is an isloated one, and runs independently on how the world actually works. Extended families are no longer as close to each other, and in many cases, people are turning to professional help for their needs, as opposed to the tradition of seeking one's relatives for help first.

Is this a bad thing then? Like many arguments, the answer to this one is highly subjective. On the one hand, being exposed to the world and thus meeting other people/cultures is a great way of improving one's role as a global citizen. On the other hand, that people only know each other superficially means that the support network in times of catastrophe can be flaky at best, since one would be unlikely to risk one's life and limb in order to help someone whom they do not know ``close enough''.

But for now, enough of the rather pretentious air that I seem to be evoking by talking about the world at large. Let's talk about me. I don't really like the whole superficial socialisation business; to me, it is a symbol of devaluation of what it means to be human. Suddenly people are not seen for who they are, but by just what they can do. Ever heard of that ``super-star'' person who gets away with almost anything just because he/she is really good at what he/she does, even though he/she is a complete and utterly terrible person who tyrannises the people they work with? I've seen these kinds of people before, and I guess that their behaviour is partially influenced by the fact that the world works on very superficial social situations. Of course I can argue in the other direction---how many people are out there in decision-making positions who are really incompetent by are they simply because they make themselves look as though the people know them really well?

Social interactions as a whole then is rather complicated to define and practise, particularly under this rapid globalisation context where people just don't hang around long enough for others to truly learn more about them. The phrase ``life in the fast lane'' comes to mind each time I think about how people are just putting on a show for everyone else to see, simply because they don't really know how best to carry themselves in front of others. Sadly, this ``show business'' is also used heavily among people who are supposed to be intimate with each other, like couples. That could possibly be the reason why divorce rates are so high in many developed countries; people get into a ``serious'' relationship based on the charade they see, and when time wears on and the charade disintegrates, all that is left is the bareness of an immature soul that only knows how to make people like them and not know how to be themselves.

Many have called me tactless, and of course I agree with them. That is not the complete truth, however, since my ``tactlessness'' does not appear where it ``counts'' socially, i.e. when I am truly expected to put on a show for others (like in a business setting for example). I am candid when I am with people whom I think that I can trust, and being candid means that I do not bar the expression of my feelings and thoughts to these people. And all these explains why I have decided to stay out of #cslounge from now on. Don't get me wrong, it is a nice place to talk about things of all sorts and to listen to various perspectives of people. But then there's this problem of being a clique---they are from #cslounge and are thus ``better'' than those of us who are not on that place. A look through the logs will show this to be the case in general throughout the history of the place. I am there, but I am not there, which is a rather strong distinction that I think I must say. Not that I don't like the people on #cslounge, but that at this point, they don't need me, and I don't need them either. Might as well stay away since there is nothing of importance being lost. I mean, in a year, they would not remember me, we would be doing divergent activities, and life still goes on differently for all of us. And I never really felt the need to conform to their philosophy and will; there are other more interesting things that I can do (and I should!).

Alright, enough talk on the nature of human social interaction. I'm getting sick of writing about this topic already. Till next time.

Code and LISP

Yet another day passes, but this time, it is significantly more productive than what I would have grown to expect. The month of April comes upon us, and soon it will be May, and I would have graduated, and will need to make my way back home, away from my lovely girlfriend, and into the supposed drudgeries of a working life. Having never truly learnt LISP before, I find that the code I'm hacking in that language just seems to flow like the wine that one pours out of the amphora; each drop that falls out contain the brevity and wisdom that is within my make-up.

I guess I'm starting to have a good feel of what it means to be a ``hacker'' as opposed to just being a programmer.

Code, I live it, I breathe it, I eat it, and I work it.