Computer Chaos

Computer Chaos. -- A whimsical View?

This article was done for publication some years ago and surprise surprise nothing has change. It is here again with a little addition.

How dependent are we becoming on computers and IT as a driving force in Economic or Social Development? Is there blind faith in the expectation of the technology being the next great leap forward or coming to the aid of ailing western like economies, delivering enhanced wealth to replace old economic generators or even social aspects?

Key operational functions which are important to the security and stability of the world, are now inextricably caught up in the inter connection of IT. It might be argued that such functions are seen to be driven more by the reliance on computers and the inbuilt inflexibility of computers systems, than any considered structural design in the application of such technology. Is such laissez faire attitude to the implementation of IT leading the economy and social fabric to a break down point before any one is aware of a problem, or can stop it?

The past decade has seen an unprecedented shift in the expectation of multinational companies, in that there is a rapid ideological shift in the reason for being in business. Shareholder value is taking premier place as the prerequisite for business activity. This feeds the bear or bull frenzy of the money / share market. Automatic share transaction is becoming a volatile force in the money market available to an increasing number of individuals to make transactions and add to the ability of a massive global move in monetary transaction. Downsizing, the drive for faster efficiency, and higher profits together with this shareholder value ideology are leading to the replacement of human activated work with automatic computer systems. This reduction in human operating functions is placing ever-greater reliance on the technology of systems to perform functions that humans previously did.

A person sceptical of IT may see that computer systems architecture is restricting the human interactive processes and chain of responsive command. Designers of systems are assuming a perfect operating state without much regard to the actual work process or its purpose previously carried out by a human operated system. This fixed architecture places restrictions on human interaction; with designers often not even understanding fully what intelligent re constructive work humans did, to make fallible manual systems operate.

Computers are rigid in their output and totally reliant on the value or accuracy of the input information, ‘dross in dross out’. Within this they do what the programmer designs them to do. Operations are systemic; one command relies on another. In a perfect operating environment everything would follow a set path to a ‘correct’ conclusion. Fortunately the human environment is subject to constant illogical irrational intuitive change.

Humans can make value judgements and exercise ‘common sense’ to alter nonsense information. However where the unquestioned accuracy of computer held data is taken as a fact, complication and problems will occur. Changing anything in this environment is not possible if the computer systems have not been programmed to accept the (correct) non-standard input of information or if it contradicts the set programme. Finding where the authority lies to make changes, will not be easy and takes time. Even if the surrounding human activity and operating requirement is enacted by common sense. i.e. an operator knows that something does not make sense or is inaccurate, they can be powerless to change the information. This is assuming that the operator recognises the error or desires to conflict with the IT system to correct an error. A recent dispute with a call centre that ‘communicated’ with another call centre, made me appreciate this difficulty.

Most operators of computers are becoming handcuffed by the technology and accept that ‘systems go down’. A fabulous excuse sometimes to do nothing, any action is then held whilst being prepared to wait until systems are up and running again.
Knowing what the problem was or how a minor malfunction occurred or to make sure it can not happen again, is not the operator’s job, that is the domain of the systems / programme managers and they do not generally believe in the operators need to know.

Although Computer hardware is generally more reliable there are a number of problems that are likely to be of growing concern and if combined could be of catastrophic proportions.

The hardware is now of such densities that 'stray' electron / radio surges can possibly disable or false charge the system – have it do what it is not supposed to. This is already of some concern as you are asked to not use your mobile in a hospital, aeroplane, garage etc even though the risk is minimal!

Systems could increasing go wrong as a result of a step increase in the hidden historical software and architectural failures, this is of particular relevance in the interface between human requirement and the requirements of the organisation, its systems processes and computerised automatic responses.

The increasing interconnectivity of IT system on a global basis. The speed and scope of the Internet expansion, once access time improves, could offer a much faster infection rate of bugs and hacking. Corruption and a financial melt down caused by deliberate or non-concerted calamities are real possibilities.

Human fall out, as technology moves up the cost of staying in the e world increases. Those with the resources can keep pace. Economically inactive people cannot.

The initial instigation of computer installations is driven by the need to process information faster with reduced human input. Problems start with the lack of understanding on how and why the existing human operation works. Those involved in the active process may not be consulted, as the decision to go into IT systems is often a sole, corporate managerial one. Assuming that there is a systems strategy, the next flaw will be with the people designing the IT systems. They may start out with a clear brief but in the design and implementation process, get diverted by changes in the brief. Key staff leave and the person assuming responsibility does not realise the full brief, interpreting it in their own way and laying in the final faulty foundation.

The final soft / hard system may then not give what it was ultimately required to do, is forced to be adapted, or is cancelled like the examples of the Horizen project for the Post Office. - a Social Security payment system, Trawlerman a Secret Service id checker system dumped after £30m and Wessex Health management system which lost £40m, and the passport debacle to name a few.

On a much larger scale the recent millennium fiasco has yet to cause the chaos forecasted yet it is costing the western economy billions to provide safeguards. It is notable that a number of ‘developed, developing and Asian’ countries have done very little as it is viewed as an inconsequential risk. Linking this to the every burgeoning web use, which is (from a democratic point of view thankfully) unregulated, does much for the computer buffs but drives an increasing gap between the actual everyday users and the black art programmer fixers. Few people had the foresight to recognise or have the expectation for the growth of computer technology. Even over the past half-decade when it could clearly be seen, no compatible guiding statutes for safety nets, have been adopted by any country.

The potential conflict of the IT implementation and humans requirements together with this lack of ‘guiding’ foresight and the continued blind belief in the application of computers might lead, at some stage to a virtual computer grid lock of catastrophic proportions. Therefore the future danger and problems with say, ‘the bug,’ has little to do with the lack of ability in handling a date change but more to do with being bitten by computers facilitating compounded programmed bugs themselves and extraneous flash over actions! Of course by that time computers will be so intelligent and run everything that they will have to solve the problem of what to do with all the spare humans who can’t consume the stuff they make.


IEDO.
2000-01-01

1.9.06 an update:

Yet again the government are caught out in not understanding the complexity of installing a computer system without fully accepting what goes on to deliver a current intelligent labour-intensive paper system. The wrong people are invariable involved in the ring fenced project discussions and they often have no grasp of what systems are active in their work area and do not involve the actual ‘coal face’ workers.

Once a design brief is established by these supercilious ignorant mangers it is not unusual for a change in the requirement of the system to be required by political or other interested parties. That change alters significantly the proposed operating parameters of the brief and the proposed computer system. As the design gets more complicated, the deliver time gets elongated and cost over runs occur. During this stage as a great deal of effort and resources have been applied to the project, there builds a great resistance and reluctance to point out errors and major flaws that have been noted. No one wants to cry wolf as their job / contract to deliver the project will be called into question, so the now miss-designed project goes on to its final ignominious end.

Failure is near inevitable with inimical conception or financial limitation imposed on the project with a lack of experienced expertise and knowledge or a later imposed operating budget that does not match the desired outcome. These constraint more than anything else lead the project to underachieve its objective and usually over extend before the errors are accepted as becoming too large to justify a continuance to an uncertain conclusion.

Another good example of grandiose failure late is the SS payment benefit system of 6.8bn spent, now been quietly dropped.

This is on top of the national programme for the NHS at £12.4bn, which is suffering problems with the internal different systems architecture of region health authorities not being compatible and not sharing similar platforms of information, leading to a very slow response time, insufficient access space / handling capacity and difficult log on by doctor’s surgeries.

Now enter the idea of identity cards, an all encompassing data system that will be developed for unspecified purpose. (Control of the populace?) Given the history of government expenditure and experience in this field, one can already see the problems and miss use of this the most ambitious of computerisation projects to date.

© Renot 2005-2006

English Day

English Day.

In a speech this year, G. Brown floated the idea of having a special day established to celebrate England as in St George’s day. This would be something similar to the day celebrated by the Welsh, Irish and Scots. This suggestion raised some irritation as it was labelled as being a show of past imperialism, nationalistic and xenophobic, given that the county had supposedly gone down the road of believing it was now a multi culturist country. The idea he raised was perhaps too narrow in that the other nations do make some attempt to recognise their saint’s day if not with a ‘bank holiday’ they do take an interest in it as an occasion, the English have actively not.

Any cursory examination of the state of the UK would lead to a view that although there are a large number of non indigenousness people living in these isles one could not say that it was a multi cultural society. The nearest the UK came to this would have been with the close ties between the Scottish, Welsh, Irish and the English. By no stretch of the imagination could it be said there is the same level of integration occurring with and between the new accumulations of people.

In some ways to denigrate the idea of having English day, was an attempt to continue to conceal the fact the UK is not a multi culture society and to keep fostering the illusion of multi culturist and ‘integration’, integration that is not occurring, so for those detractors having a special English day would not be helpful.

Each of the four nations have a ‘patron saint’ – St Andrew, St Patrick, St David and the English have St George but the English have not marked their day by way of a celebration, these St days also indicate the Christian style background of the nations.

I would much prefer to have an English day but failing that would settle for a British day to celebrate the four nations as UK and what it has achieved, what it stands for and who we are. We of the UK are a four-nation creation that has allowed into our mist others that come from completely different nations with different social connections. It was hoped that the new immigrants would want to take advantage of their new home and adopt the same sense of belonging to a proud country and begin to call them selves English, Scottish, Welsh or Irish, dependant on where they live, wrapped up in a British mantle. This though is not the case, far from it.

There is ample evidence that the many of the newer arrival do not hold any respect for the host nations, do not want to adopt assimilation, preferring to keep and flaunt their own cultural laws, language, and insulate themselves away from the flux of the surrounding way of life. In some cases there is a slight shift towards recognising the country that they are in and this is with the use of the prefix tag of ‘British’, a tag that is also being used to force a perceptive change that overrides the national description of the historic four nations.

The increasing use of a prefix identifiable national tag, that is being adopted like saying ‘British’ African, Indian, Pakistan, muslim and Chinese etc – now also covers as far as public document is concerned, any person that may have considered themselves to be English, Scottish, Welsh, or Irish. they are now counted as British instead.
This re-branding by PC pressure has increased and is driven by the desire assume that multi culturist is an actual fact within the social fabric of the UK and can supersede nation identify built on the idea that the UK has been created from mongrel backgrounds which therefore can absorb immigrant without any conflict of nation identity. If more people had seen this trend and objected then this re-branding could have been forced to fade away. It was not until the event of the London bombs in July 05 did the state wake up to the fallacy of their own creation. Too much has been done to subordinate the traditional of our nations, not enough done to protect their image, particular with the English and it has allowed too much erosion of their own cultural identity to pander to multi culture mores.

Continuing to add this ‘British’ tag by recent immigrants and ‘indigenous’ ethnics only makes the transition of ‘belonging’ much harder. It also adds more weight to highlighting the difference between people of different cultures and portrays a confusing message, why be here if they do not want to adapt and adopt if by inference somewhere else is better? Knowing ones cultural heritage is one thing but living it out of the environment that has not nurtured it is futile.

So let’s have a celebration day for all those that want to belong to England, let’s have an ENGLISH day and be proud of it as part of Great Britain PLC.

Now whether it is St George’s day 23rd April, which may happen by default (and is a day also celebrated by other counties) or May Day a particular socialist labour day of May 1st, or the particular English event of the 15th June 1215 the signing of the Magna Carta is all open to debate but whatever day, it should be celebrated!

This date of 15.6.1215 topped a BBC recent survey so it does show some element of strength for claiming a commemorative day however it may be more prudent to recognise the contribution that all of the nation of GB have provided and have a national day, one that would also allows the new foreigners that wish to exercise their given right to belong to GB to hopefully claim some ownership of it as well. Choosing such a unified commemorative day though would be more tortuous than simply going for either of the two dates that world best signify an English day, 23rd April or 15th June. Two other options that could be useful, we could go for all Saints day 1st November which incorporates all the essence of a Christian sense that is the majority backdrop of GB people or create a European Union day.

The difficulties that have arisen over the issue of identify and a cultural sense will not go away. Separation tendencies may increase dramatically when the pressures on social systems and the economy get tough, at such a time the ethnic minority that are intent on standing out from assimilation will attract vitriolic interest. It is their own best interest to want to be seen to be a part of their new nation and join in, not try to change the majority for their needs. In the meanwhile we need to counter the erosion of Englishness and give our historic identity greater precedence over any attempt to circumvent what it is to be English. It is to be valued for if we do not we will be submerged into a morass of alien dictates


P17.10.6
© Renot 2005-2006

Big Bang.

Big Bang or etheric space.

So, some evidence has come to be that the nature of the missing matter is being understood. The standard model of the universe is that matter accounts for 4% (or 0.5% depends on what best guess you need to suit a mathematical model) of what is seen, (the hard stuff) dark energy 16% and dark matter 80%. Now some measures show that DM is 1000 light year across and 30 time the mass of the sun albeit it (DM) is still not identified but a possible candidate is the weak interactive massive particle (wimp) for the moment.

The Big Bang (BB) is set as the start of the universe and it is assumed before which there was nowt. The evidence for the BB rest on the background residue radiation detected at great distance to the edge of this the measurable universe and is deemed to be the ‘left over radiation’ resulting from a massive bust of energy from the BB. This radiation is of known uniform back ground strength from all points of the universe, known as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation. It has been measured as resulting from about 380K years after the BB and shows the first sign of the black body form of space and seems to suggest that matter and energy were held in equilibrium for 150K years before matter and energy formed. This adds to the strength of the BB theory, it’s very nice to have the universe behave as expected.

The actual best guess (for that is what it is) of what caused the BB is unresolved and its solution is based on scenarios matching existing observation and measurements, it is taken as a matter of contested ‘faith’ and scientific fact that there was nothing before the BB – no time, no space, no matter.

Unfortunately there is a problem with the current model of the universe and it is that with the BB’s mathematical calculation, the indication is that with time and space (?) the expansion of the universe may be finite as the gravitational force that seem both to repel and attract and hold the solar and galactic systems together, are not enough to account for the size and scope of the galaxies or the universe, i.e. some of our ‘matter’ is missing, like 99% of it.

In physics the assumption was that gravity had very little effect on the large sacle universe. The power of gravity diminishes exponentially with distance so the effect of gravity is most pronounced at close range and was accepted as non effective at great stellar distance outside the mass range of or between bodies. But if one looks at the aggregate effect of the weak force of gravity to shape galaxies then the quantum mechanics of this weak force must have an effect. Why do galaxies seem to be moving to a regular organised shape and why are there super structure of galaxies and large voids between them? All seem to be shifting away from each other, revolving and not an even spread around the universe as might be expected with a BB. And the universe is still expanding. The solution to the way galaxies have been created and the uneven distribution is put down to the small deviation in the ‘temperature’ of the cosmic microwave background, why there should be such a change, when there is or should be ‘nothing’ to affect the energy flow resulting from the BB or if there is or was some form of interference wave to cause such a spread, is not understood.

The purported reason that the planets revolve around the sun is that an objects mass has an effect on space, it can change the fabric of space time so it is not just gravity that holds them in toe but the subsequent ‘dent’ in the fabric of space caused by their trapped mass. So it would seem, that matter is falling into the dent/dip with the largest mass causing the biggest dent and the rest following suit. This issue does raise some problem, in that in what / where is the dent caused and is this dent replicated in the larger galaxy al la Black Holes. (BH)

It has been postulated, with some evidence, that at the centre of galaxies there exist fantastic black holes creating a vortex formed by the collapse of a massive star(s) gathering material and growing to a size so dense and large that its gravity draws in immense amounts of material and from which nothing can escape. This massive draw creates an event horizon that cannot even be seen as no light can escape either. But if the black hole exists on the dent in space distorting the fabric of space and nothing can escape, why is it that in detecting the external effects of a BH’s are there energy jets streaming from the pole regions? Are the jet ‘exhaust’ a back pressure of the material being squeezed into something or is it a release of pressure (Hawking radiation)? Is the material disappearing into some where and reappearing somewhere else? Do all the BH’s pour into non existence (unlikely) or reappear in the same dimension and exist at a critical time and at some point as in a new BB? All this does leave open huge imponderables not the least of which is the question how it all stated. Might it be reasonable to assume that all BH’s simply convert mass into another form – dark energy / dark matter that fuels a universe expansion?

It does seem that it is rather inelegant to assume that there was nothing before the BB, if this was the case why did the BB happen? Or does the question even have any value if time, space nor matter existed prior it the BB; do physics support a miracle for the BB and the creation of the universe? Why did the nothingness not continue – this would one should expect be a set stable state and would require no energy to maintain this state. So it seems unlikely that there was nothing at all before the BB, something must have changed to start the process. So one should reject the idea that there was nothing before the BB.

However assuming for the moment that the BB was a likely genesis for this universe13.7 billion years ago, the thought is that a huge amount of ‘energy’ came into being to expand and eventually coalesce into visible matter and spook material. This in my mind creates another conflict - how long does it take something like energy, as insubstantial as a cloud to form a rock? The accretion principle for the formation of planets etc has to come from somewhere and if it was the ‘leftover stuff’ from the BB’s / universe’s creation will it be a surprise when a lump of rock turns up over 15 billion years old?

Which of the two states is possible that have been regarded as being contenders for the beginning of this universe – the Steady State or the BB (and eventually collapse)? That the universe can expand forever is as imponderable as the ‘time’ before the universe began so if the law on thermodynamics holds – it could expect that as the universe expands it will get colder as all energy deteriorates with entropy to eventually reach a state of cold ‘empty’ vastness and that is that. However if gravity does have an effect even at great distances then a big collapse could occur leading to a big crunch – maybe resulting in a BB, so starting the process again. The steady state assume that the universe has always existed and that the birth and death of stars and galaxies reoccur as the matter changes from one form too another. Even this model seems unsustainable if entropy is not balanced by energetic addition.

There may not be any black hole at the centre of galaxies so goes the latest controversial theory, as yet there is no proof for this but it is an another element of the uncertainty that pervades all the models of the universe and the parameter set up with the mathematical thermodynamics models of the BB.

It dose seem to me that the one way the idea of the universe can be loosely understood is by holding a number of fluid open views along the lines of, everything I say is a lie but you can you believe it’s the truth until proven wrong.

1. The BB theory is not correct. As everything as an action / reaction (so far as is known) how can there have been nothing before the BB to propagate a BB? Scientists are extremely vague on this as it leads them into the creationist arguments so prefer to think this question as a non-sequitur.

2. The BB happened! It is only viable if it can be replicated repeatedly as in the idea of the conservation of energy, (e=Mc2) i.e. its eventual size is limited by the activity of the energy within it and it could conceivably recreate the BB by a collapse. Once the energy that binds the motion of matter together slows or ceases, expansion stops and reversal could take place.

3. The steady state theory might be feasible if the formation of each galaxy were created similar to a multitude of BB’s with BB’s being the driving force of the recreation of a new universe by matter ‘falling’ through BH space to exist at another time dimension, so this universe is a result of BB from another dimension.

4. The universe is not real. It is a creation of the whole of universal life as a method of being in existence. The assumption is that the material world was formed before life could start. Maybe they are interdependent; one cannot exist without the other. (Anthropic principle) Maybe the universe is and is expanding because the ‘fabric’ of space is existent on the knowing of existence. Without a creative will of all life to view the universe it may not exist nor would matter exist without being observed, each depends ultimately on the other, this is leaning toward a nihilist point of view yet it cannot avoid the fact that life is (we think) and can think upon the issues. All of life is the driving force of universes.

5. None of the current theories provide an answer to the problem of how it all started or where it will end and there may never be an answer for us to comprehend. We may cease to exist before we have time to conclude the questions!.

The assumption is that the universe cannot be older than 15 billion years. Currently 13.7 billion is the furthest reaches of space identified and the expectation is that due to the red shift anything further is likely to be conveniently invisible. Some evidence appears to suggested that there is at the furthers reaches of this universe, proto galaxies that we are seeing the light of as the first galaxies to be formed after the BB - if this is so it puts more weight behind the BB and the finite size limit to our universe. But will it continue to expand forever getting colder and vacant?

We have become use to the idea that we can find an explanation for most things which is one of the interesting factors of the universe, that it’s seems to be designed to be mostly understandable to us but it exist on a very narrow margin of the balance of our known physics being right. Failing understanding we postulate & invent propositions to a map out plausible scenarios until we find proof that we are right. So in the case of the universe, if the BB created everything and nothing was before and what we see seems to confirm that it is expanding, why is it expanding, where to and can it go on for ever? Is it that the universe can continue beyond a time that has no meaning and beyond the ability of anything to know of or be influenced by its existence? If so then what is the point of it all. Maybe there is no point to it all maybe it just is! Could it be that the more we learn the more uncertain the solutions - something keeps moving the boundary.

The universe is likely to be more perverse than we can anticipate, what is wildly dreamt of as impossible is possible; it’s just that we do not have the descriptive mechanism to understand how it works. If in the whole universe humans are the only creatures to be cognisant and ask questions and the whole universe is ours, what a huge waste of space. Are humans like their lab rats forever to see the boundary of their prison and never realise the position it occupies?

For the moment matter is imbedded in a construct of the universe and is expanding and not slowing down as the BB model would suggest it should be, but why? Might it be that the universe we experience is much bigger by an order of magnitude than we cannot detect. The BB (ours) might be just one of a number of BB’s that have occurred and still be occurring in an immense dimension and that the laws of physics (ours) are not fundament laws at all but merely convenient condition that are temporary. After all on a micro cosmic scale, the physics of quantum mechanics indicates that cause and effect are not stable conditions, why should physics be? What would happen if one of the laws of physics was not entirely correct, for example the speed of light – nothing can exceed c 186K+ mps. If the missing material of the universe was a energy wave / particle that was moving faster than light it would be perhaps undetectable other than its effect on the sub light material, it would not travel through ‘space’ but could appear to pop in and out of perception, perhaps it is this that is responsible for the expansion and shape of the universe, the missing substance. Of course it is impossible that there could be an energy wave / particle that has no mass, no kinetic or measurable energy, such a form would be outside the limits of known physics and even strain quantum mechanics to define just what such a form could be. It would be having a ghost in the machine that is when not seen and is not when looked for (Schrödinger's Cat) but will this stop such a ghost from being useful.

The problem of understanding the how and why of everything still remains and theories abound, this is not to mention the idea of multiple universes and dimensions created by super string and m-brane ideas, all as a way of getting out of the conundrum – a lot of our matter is missing. But then what do I know about all this stuff I am just a visitor.

P8.9.06.


© Renot 2005-2006