Category Archives: Articles

Why is a snooze nine minutes instead of ten?

On many, many clocks the snooze function is nine minutes instead of ten or five. Why oh why oh why is this the case. This is especially difficult since it has been suggested by many people that getting up on an odd number of minutes is bad luck.*

The thing is that I personally don’t use the snooze function. The problem is that if I had snooze then I would probably snooze forever. What I do is I turn my alarm clock off when ever it goes. This leaves me only one choice: get out of bed. When I used to be much more tired back in the bad old days I used to avoid snooze with it’s easy choices, and turn the alarm off but set a new alarm time of ten minutes from now. This gave me the extra ten minutes in bed that I needed and meant that I had made a conscious thought and so was at least partially out of my deep sleep.

So I was talking to my friend Alison who was wondering about why the snooze is nine minutes the other day, and I couldn’t remember the answer right away. I think this may be because there are about a million stupid reasons for it. The most common wrong reason is that digital watch makers wanted to only have to watch one digit of the clock and so made it be 9 minutes. This sounds pretty good. You would have to only remember one piece of data and watch for the number to be that again. But why not wait for it to be that plus one?

The real reason seems to be that it comes from analogue clocks. And that analogue clocks are slightly imprecise. And that the snooze was supposed to be 10 minutes or less. At first this meant that the snooze wheel ran for somewhere between 9 and ten minutes. But as the clocks became more and more intricate they became more and more accurate even with the snooze. At some point somebody decided to make it determined by the minute hand to add to the precision and at that point nine minutes was chosen as the largest number of minutes that is less than ten.

Then in the digital age when somebody was copying the clock they based it on this system. And then it got built into the National Semiconductor’s MM5370 digital alarm-clock chip which is used in most modern digital alarm clocks.

*Hey I don’t make these things up! People who think this, but want to use the snooze function, use this as an excuse to press snooze twice. Whereas this could be easily avoided by having the alarm clock go off one minute early (not that they’d ever do that).

Toilet Tennis

Once while out with a group of girls, as the designated driver, I was able to discover one of the greatest secrets of the universe. That night the true reason why women take longer in the toilet than men was revealed to me, and also the related reason of why they go to the toilet in pairs.

In this perfect storm of a situation they were willing just for the night to reveal the utter truth of the situation, something that they have never done to a man who is sober. All I can imagine is that that night – they were really drunk.*

The answer is, of course, that they play tennis – in the cubicles. And as we know there is a common tendency of women to go to the toilet at the same time. This is because they have a match lined up and ready to go.

The exact rules are not widely known among men-folk but generally involve lofting the spare toilet roll over the tops of the cubicles. Games can take upwards of twenty minutes and this is the main reason that these things take so long. Toilet-tennis is rapidly being banned in chic establishments as it has been widely linked to the emergence of male homophobia. Male homophobia it is widely agreed is far more common than that among women. This is due to men’s inability to play toilet tennis.

Many years ago when toilets were coming into fashion, toilet tennis was invented. Both men and women played at first. But more often than not the men would find that the spare roll that they were using would fall into the urinal or bowl that was less guarded because they weren’t sitting down. Although most men didn’t care about the roll getting soggy, and just scratched the game, men couples leaving the toilets soon came to be scorned.

People who sat near men couples soon noticed the smell of urine on their trousers and so began a dislike among society of men going to the toilet together. To make matters good and equal opportunities a lot of chic restaurants, as I say, are banning tennis altogether rather than letting men sit in their restaurants covered in piss.

*Actually to get back from the pub to where the car was parked I had to take this merry band across a field which had cows in it. The part of the field we had to walk across was about a normal persons’ one minute walk in a straight line. And in that time two of them “got lost” and wandered into the middle of the cows. That’s how drunk they were. I can still vividly remember now trying to herd the ladies to one corner of the field after one of them declared that she would only answer to me shouting “Moo”.

Only one person has ever died on the Waterloo and City line

This is the true story of the only person to have ever died on the Waterloo and City underground line. This might be because it’s the shortest line which probably means that if you fall ill there would be time to take you off of the train in time. And also because each end of the line results in a terminus there is no real speed for the trains and so you wouldn’t be very successful if you flung yourself in front of one.

But one man has done it. He succeeded where others had failed. He managed to kill himself on the Waterloo and City line. The way that this occurred was that he was drunk and on his way home from some serious revelling in the City. And mid journey he decided that he needed a pee. Now he must have been really desperate because the journey is frankly not very long. And clearly he was, but being British he didn’t feel he could just pee on the train that wouldn’t be very polite. So he opened the door between the carriages and stepped out. Amazingly he wasn’t killed by this simple act, so perched on the small interconnecting strip between the carriages he started to relieve himself. But clearly he didn’t do so for very long because he managed to create a simple electrical circuit between himself and the live rail and was instantly killed. It is not recorded which of the trains he was on, Walter, Lou, Anne or Kitty* but surely none of them can be blamed.

*No, really!

Speech Therapy

I’ve been to a few social gatherings in my time and at some of them speeches have been required. It’s an odd area because sometimes the people making the speeches are exacctly the kind of people who love making speeches and sometimes the people concerned have been forced into it.

I do love listening to a speech regardless of the quality because it’s usually entertainingly good or entertainingly bad. However if you are about to make a speech here are my two handy tips taken from real speeches that have gone well.

Tip one, for the person who makes a lot of speeches and does it well:
This one comes straight from the person I’ve seen make the most speeches in my life. He is famous for his speeches and always starts them with the same hoarey old line, “unaccustomed as I am”, which because it’s a lie and such an obvious one means he starts with a laugh every time. A good start is always important.

Tip two, for the person who doesn’t often make speeches and might be nervous.
Keep it simple and keep it short. If you’re stuck for a line that’s simple and short then you might like to use this one which was used at a wedding I attended and was the entirety of the only speech. First he went all out for making everyone quiet and so on. Then had somebody say, “pray silence for the speeches” and then he said, “ok everyone, lets get pissed”.

Note to American readers “pissed” in this context means “drunk”.

Working for a living

As I’m just moving at the moment and having some work done before I move in. And it’s revealed to me a very bizarre change that seems to have happened in the building world.

The thing is that there probably isn’t that much that changes in the world of workmen. This could of course be incredibly prejudicial, but I think it’s the case. I guess ease of access to electrical equipment and power tools have somewhat changed the job, but what I’m thinking of has totally revolutionised it. I mean to a tradesman this is the biggest thing since the portable radio, and all that meant was that they don’t now have to whistle which probably saves them a little bit on lip-salve and not much else.

The big change for them must have come with the invention of the mobile phone. This really must have altered the way that they work. Simply because now they can book in their next job while they are still doing their current one. It’s one of those technology situations where you suddenly realise “what on earth did they ever do before”? Did they have an answering service that they checked in on from time to time? Or did they only take calls in the evening?

I realised that the best way to find the answer to this was to simply ask them. But all of the people who are working for me said that they used to work for firms and be given jobs to do by the firm itself. So they had never worked as a sole trader without a phone. But then I wonder, is it not the mobile phone that has made it possible for them to quit their jobs and become a sole trader? It seems entirely possible.

Other things I have learnt from this moving experience:

1) Taking wallpaper off a wall where the wallpaper has had paint on top of it is really hard.

And

2) If you want to name your son after yourself then a really good name to have is Robert. I had two guys working for me at one point as a father and son team. The father was called Bert and the son Rob. It really helps to have two short names within your long name if you’re going to try and pull a stunt like that.

Hey don’t blame me, it’s not like I chose to write it in two parts

On Monday I started an article about Free Will called I feel like I just had to write this article. You may want to check that out before continuing here.

The problem of a lack of Free Will is one that happens in society. If we don’t believe in Free Will then how can we blame people for the things that they do?

The biggest problem with the theory of Free Will is everyone has the everyday experience of making decisions and being able to rationalise them. Now Scientists have proven that people will much of the times rationalise their behaviour after they have done something. It’s most likely that you’ve even seen direct evidence of this. One of the most interesting parts of a hypnosis demonstration is that they will sometimes ask somebody who is no longer under hypnosis why they were doing the things that they were doing. The answer is never “because you were telling me” to because they don’t remember that they come up with incredibly contorted rationalisations to prove that they had a perfectly good reason to do what they were doing. And apparently we do that all of the time even when we’re not under hypnosis.

So in reality we feel like we’re in control, which means that people feel like they are able to blame others for their actions. So how does society cope with this situation? It simply pretends that Free Will exists.

Right around the point that people think of determinism people usually recreate in their minds the idea of Laplace’s Demon. Pierre Simon Laplace believed in determinism and thought that if you took it to it’s logical extension there could be a demon who could work out exactly where every atom in the universe was and use that information to determine the future. Now there are two problems with the demon (other than the fact that it doesn’t exist).

The demon can’t know itself because to remember something it has to store it somewhere and the memory must take at least as many atoms as the thing it is remembering and to know if its atoms are affecting any other atoms it would have to remember the position of all of the atoms in its own mind which would require more atoms up until infinity.

Also it would need to know everything and calculate what everything was going to do next faster than the time it takes for anything to happen. Which because of the fact that something has to happen for it to be able to work out what is going to happen next means that things out in the universe would have been happening as well so it must be too late.

For added measure even if it could work out what everything was going to do it would be impossible for it to do anything about it faster than in the space of time where everything would have changed.

The point of mentioning this is that Laplace’s Demon teaches something important locally. It shows us that we can never know why we are making a choice. Because we never have all of the information.

Okay so what does all of this mean for ethics? How do we say to somebody that they need to be locked up for having done something wrong, when they can reply that they didn’t choose to do it?

The answer is that we have justice the wrong way round too. It’s a hangover from the ideas of Free Will that people have to be punished for the things that they have done. The correct way of thinking of this surely is that if somebody is a murderer the best way of stopping them from murdering somebody else is to put them in prison. It’s much harder for them to murder people from in there.

The biggest failing of the current system is the idea of diminished responsibility. Why is it right for somebody to be able to get a reduced sentence by claiming that they were temporarily unable to control their actions. I don’t mind losing this legal loophole. Because as far as I’m concerned I don’t understand why under the current system every murderer doesn’t claim temporary insanity. When the judge asks on what grounds surely they could simply say “well how often do you kill someone”? Frankly the only reason people don’t claim this all of the time is because they either think they can get off or they know they didn’t do it. In either of these situations they don’t want to have to say they did it, which is what you have to do if you want to claim temporary insanity. Sometimes people do admit guilt and don’t use the temporary insanity clause but those are the people who are actually truly insane.

The question you have to ask yourself at the end of all of this is the one I was attempting to answer in my first article, <a href="http://www.gamboling.co.uk/2006/11/free-willy.html
“>Free Willy, which is how much difference does all of this make?

In the end it comes down to a question of symantics. Understanding the issues around Free Will doesn’t allow you to act any differently (other than perhaps allowing you to use the word “demon” at a party without sounding like you’re into science fiction – although I’d probably advise you to avoid parties where describing questions of Free Will are likely to come up: “Why worry about having killed that hooker while high on drugs it’s not like you choose to do it”).

Essentially what’s the difference between being able to say that you chose to do something and the alternative which is knowing that you didn’t make the choice yourself but that nobody will be able to ever predict what choice you will make. A lack of choice does reduce us to the level of robots on the one hand but it doesn’t matter because. When we look at a robot we can know exactly what they are going to do next because we can find out all of the information that they evaluate and predict what’s going to happen next. But we can’t do that with humans because we would have to evaluate more information than we could understand fast enough to do anything about it and we would have to store it somewhere larger than all of the space we have for in our own brains. And we would have to do something about in less time than we have time to do anything. So what difference does knowing that Free Will doesn’t exist make? I think absolutely none, but you’ll have to decide for yourself.

I feel like I just had to write this article

Nick pointed out in a comment to Wednesday’s post Philtrum Filtering that Free Will could be an illusion simply because we make our judgments on the back of all of the conditioning that we have been receiving since we were brought up.

When I was writing about free will (in Free Willy) I was kind of skipping over to that bit to get to the next question which is that while patently free will technically doesn’t exist what do we do about the fact that we as a society have to pretend that free will does exist all of the time.

So lets prove that free will doesn’t exist first. To do this I will use the words of Douglas Adams:

Anything that happens, happens. Anything that, in happening, causes something else to happen, causes something else to happen. Anything that, in happening, causes itself to happen again, causes itself to happen again.

Basically we can probably say that everything that happens happens for a reason. This may be disputed because things might be truly random. You will have to decide for yourself if you think that things are random (heh see what I did there) but it seems likely that things happen because other things caused them to happen. And that everything simply leads backwards to the big bang.

Just as a confusing aside it’s important to realise that nothing caused the big bang to happen. Religious people believe that they were made by God but that nothing made God. Scientists believe that they were made by the big bang (evolution is a local version of that because what made the first life-form?) but that nothing made the big bang.

Here’s a story that Steven Hawking told in his book A Brief History of Time:


“A well-known scientist (some say it was Bertrand Russell) once gave a public lecture on astronomy. He described how the Earth orbits around the sun and how the sun, in turn, orbits around the centre of a vast collection of stars called our galaxy.
“At the end of the lecture, a little old lady at the back of the room got up and said: “What you have told us is rubbish. The world is really a flat plate supported on the back of a giant tortoise.”
“The scientist gave a superior smile before replying, “What is the tortoise standing on?”
“You’re very clever, young man, very clever,” said the old lady. “But it’s turtles all the way down!”*

But religions tend to believe that God is the creator but nothing needs to create him, that he was always just there. Which is kind of cheating. Because if things could always exist why couldn’t we be like that too? Why did we need to be created?

In science it seems like they suffer from the same problem. The universe just kind of begins and everything flows from there. So what caused the universe? Well nothing. Science has a handy trick of spotting it’s own flaws and kind of paving over them. Only at the point of the big bang does time begin. And because if you want to use the word “cause” you need to have something that happens before something then to use the word “cause” you need time. And time doesn’t start until the point the universe starts. So nothing can “cause” the universe because something would have had to have happened before the universe and there isn’t any time for all of that – still following me? So basically they’re saying nothing created the universe it just happened which sounds similar and lets face it probably is. Except if you think that things in the future can cause things to happen in the past in which case well we have a whole load of other problems on our hands.

So armed with the idea that after the big bang everything that has happened has been caused by that we have to decide if there is any chance of intervention in the process. Can we actually choose a thing. If we “decide” to have toast rather than cereal for breakfast is it because we have actually chosen to have one rather than the other or is it that we have no choice? Since the whole history of the universe has lead us to the situation of preferring toast. The weird thing is that it’s probably the second one. Because the second one is the easier to explain. People even do it themselves, “I like toast rather than cereal because I sometimes feel queasy if I have too much milk”. And the alternative requires you to have something more in your body than a series of cells. Because there would have to be some kind of thing (a soul perhaps) which science has never seen or been able to find which makes you able to ignore all of the history of the universe and have something else for breakfast. It’s the fact that we don’t know or have ever seen it which leads us to believe that Free Will doesn’t exist.

For what this means for us you’ll have to check back on Wednesday.

* This is why in Terry Pratchet’s Discworld books the earth is sitting on a turtle. He always felt peeved at this story because surely the woman should answer “don’t be a fool turtles don’t need to stand on anything they swim”.

Philtrum Filtering

In last Friday’s article (
Deckchair of Death
) I used the word Filtrum (or Philtrum it depends on your personal spelling preference) which is a pretty interesting word.

The Philtrum is the small groove that sits underneath your nose. And it’s interesting mainly because of what it means for search on the web*.

During perhaps 2000 / 2001 there was an advert made by British Telecom that was aimed at promoting the internet. In the advert a young girl walked into the center of the coliseum and was faced with millions of different people sitting there looking at her. The girl then piped up with a question which was, “What do you call the thing between your nose and your mouth”. Everyone in the coliseum goes quiet and then a guy stands up (wearing a lab coat) and says “It’s called a Philtrum”. And then the advert went on to extol the value of the internet as the place where you can find the answer to anything.

The interesting thing about that advert to me at the time was the at that precise moment there wasn’t a way to find the answer to that question on the internet. In fact it’s still the pretty much the case now. One of the hardest things to find information about on the internet is the collective group of “thing’s you don’t know the right name for”. It used to be joined by “things you don’t know how to spell” but Google solved that one so well that I know people who use Google as a spellchecker.

The big problem is that with this and many other things if you don’t know the exact right question then you won’t find the answer. Basically your only chance is if there happens to be an article which is titled with the question.

So say we actually plug “What do you call the thing between your nose and your mouth” with or without quotes into the major search engines. Google, Yahoo and Microsoft Live all say no-way to it, with quotes they all say “no pages found” and without quotes they return answers which are equally useless. However ask does have the answer to the question the only article it returns whether you’ve put the question in quotes or not is the exact right one and bizarrely is an article about how best to search for an answer to the question. Actually to be fair to Yahoo the answer is the third one in the list if you don’t include quotes but that may just be because the page is actually on Yahoo!

My main point is that while they’ve got better in many ways no search engine other than ask have really dealt with this problem properly. Ask, unfortunately, still doesn’t return for me the best results in a normal search. So I wonder if the answer really is to have to recognise this is a special kind of search and return a different kind of page? I don’t know, but the problem remains as difficult as it once was – at least it does for Google.

*There’s another interesting thing too. According to Jewish tradition, in the womb every baby is taught all of the wisdom of the world by an angel, and then just before the baby is born the angel touches the baby on the upper lip (to shh the baby) which makes it forget everything it has been taught. Sadly the Talmud is silent on why this occurs. Maybe because it is bonkers.

Dander Gander

In last Friday’s article (
Deckchair of Death
) I used the word “Dander” which is interesting (I think, but then what is this site other than things that I find interesting?).

To get one’s dander up means to become angry. But the word dander doesn’t really mean angry unless the “get my/his/her/their/ones” and “up” are wrapped around it. The rest of the time dander describes scurf* shed from the skin. It has the same root as dandruff, which is a specific form of dander. Dander is more often used to describe the kind of animal skin dust that causes people to suffer from allergies.

So what on earth has this got to do with being angry? Although I don’t really have any allergies (except I am allergic to skin contact with Christmas trees – but it doesn’t come up much) I would imagine it would make you pretty angry – but that isn’t it.

So where does it come from? Well it seems most likely that saying somebody is getting their dander up is to suggest that they are becoming redundant. And although people do get mad when they get fired it isn’t that either. Basically redundant means to have too much of something and a certain time it was used to mean “to overflow” (as in the extra liquid is redundant it is overflowing). And it’s fair to say that a an angry person is one who is overflowing with emotions. So that seems to be it, although how the word mutated is still a mystery.

*Scurf? No? Really? Well that’s kind of scaly matter, skin cells or scales etc.

Free Willy

Does Free Will exist?

Free Will doesn’t exist and does exist at the same time because it is a definition of a thing we don’t really have words for yet. Let me go all tangential for a moment and come back.

How do you know when I see something green and you see the same thing that we aren’t looking at different colors? If you’ve been told your whole life that red is green because that’s the color you see when you see things that the world calls green then how do you know the difference? And does it make a difference at a traffic light? Of course not because you are looking for the color that you associate with the label that you associate with stopping or going.

People’s view of the world is always colored (can I get away with that) by a wide variety of assumptions and rationalisations similar to this one which make no difference to the outcome of their actions. To take it to the next step people might think the sun rises every morning because they pray that it does. It would be such a terribly risky thing to not pray for the sun to rise that nobody would test the alternative. And if by some chance they missed their praying slot because they had been locked in a bunker by a crazed no-free-will proving person they would rationalise the situation by saying that their god had made the sun rise anyway to torture their captor.

So back to free will. You may think that you are responsible for your actions and that you control your own destiny but how do you know that? What is your outside proof? How can you prove that the color you see is the same color others see? The feeling you have that you are controlling your own actions is a biased piece of information as it comes from the place that you are trying to test. This means any attempt in yourself to prove that free-will exists is a flawed scientific experiment because you are attempting to decide if you are right by asking yourself. And you can’t ask anyone else either because you set up the same problem (you are asking them to decide if they have free will).

Essentially the problem is that you can’t really prove that Free Will exists. And therefore for all scientific purposes it must therefore not exist. But the assumption ingrained in people is that what we are perceiving is free will is so strong that free will is how the world operates and I will be punished if I do something wrong.

And this brings me back to my original point which is that Free Will as a concept is useless scientifically because it cannot be proved, and is useless to society because it cannot be disproved. So asking “is their free will” is a nonsense question similar to asking “is green green”? The answer is always simultaneously yes, no and it depends.