07.26.10
Posted in Programming at 2:04 am by Michael
The traditionally held restrictions of malloc()-allocated objects are “no constructor calls” and “no destructor calls”. However, there is an additional restriction: no virtual functions or polymorphism. If you wish to implement polymorphism on the Arduino and plan to use dynamic memory, you must declare operators new and delete (in terms of malloc() and free()) before you can use polymorphism. Once declared, these operators acquire the “magic” they are known for.
Attempting to call a virtual function on a malloc()-allocated object on the Arduino will not crash in an obvious way. It will merely return a bogus result which appears to come from some random spot in memory (maybe where the function points).
Of course, if you’re developing for a normal platform and not a microcontroller, just use the native new and delete and be done with it.
Permalink
Posted in Ideas at 12:11 am by Michael
It is possible to define a mapping between the bits in a digital key and the shape of a physical key. Further, it is possible to physically etch a digital key onto a physical one below the resolution at which said data could be easily copied. Consequently, it is possible to design an intelligent lock which possesses a public key and which generates a cryptographic challenge, which is then decrypted using the private (physical) key. A key which could physically open the lock but which does not possess the appropriate private key could trigger an alarm.
Certainly digital keys exist, but this key would require no power source. The lock, on the other hand, would require both power and enough logic to implement the PKI approach of choice. Nevertheless, this strikes me as a practical approach for car or office locks.
Permalink
04.17.10
Posted in Ideas, Psychology, Sociology at 11:24 pm by Michael
“Strength in numbers” indeed: I had posted an observation in the past that a key component of social identity was finding a “scapegoat” group which was in some way similar to one’s own and trying one’s best to put that group down or set it as the “lesser” group. (As an aside, because this sort of similarity is kind of like a Hamming distance – number of things that need to change to transform one into the other – which is a symmetric measure, such things tend to be reciprocal: “A thinks B is less and B thinks A is less”. Who is right? Probably neither; both are equally petty).
Well, that would imply that social identity is built on top of a deep-rooted sense of insecurity, which is countered by gathering many people with the same characteristics. Having others who think like us makes us feel Secure. Confident. Right.
An interesting corollary of this is that people who tend to feel confident/secure/right enough on their own have no need for social identity. This would seem to link self-confidence to traits ranging from individuality to creativity or an entrepreneurial mindset.
Permalink
03.26.10
Posted in Ideas, Philosophy at 8:28 pm by Michael
Superrationality does a nice job of coupling universal morality with utilitarianism, providing a much more appealing alternative to the categorical imperative (if equally impractical). Do whatever will maximize the overall utility of the system if universally performed and assume others will do the same. It’s just as logically compact, just as intuitively appealing, and just as utterly detached from reality 
Permalink
03.18.10
Posted in Personal at 12:06 am by Michael
I had stopped blogging here because I had run out of ideas.
Never before working fulltime has the faucet completely shut off. It may be the total lack of sunlight, the inability to record any ideas which come my way, or the lack of sleep as I struggle to balance this huge 60 hour chunk of time with my impending defense and my own projects – but whatever the reason, this winter was an awful time for me.
And now it is spring.
Permalink
03.17.10
Posted in Personal, Philosophy, Polymathy, Sociology at 11:47 pm by Michael
I have been reviewing educational philosophies of the past and have come to the conclusion that they have evolved in much the same manners in which the dominant societies of the times have. This should not be such a surprise, as education and leadership have tended to go hand-in-hand throughout history.
What is interesting is that these societies also undergo thematic shifts throughout historical periods: generally from a “gemeinschaft”, communal focus to a more recent “gesellschaft”, capitalistic/individualistic focus. This is of course the economy at work. What is interesting is that this trend appears to have brought us full circle.
And in this tumult, education gets dragged along too.
Hellenistic and Roman societies emphasized the role of an educated individual as a “model citizen”, destined and groomed to serve the State. This model’s ideal is Plato’s Philosopher King. As the proper purpose of the State in this context is to teach and govern the people with virtue (“Virtu”?), helping the state ultimately helps everyone. It would be a few more centuries until Machiavelli tore this idea to shreds.
The fall of Rome took with it much of the accumulated knowledge, which became the provenance of the Church. It is thus little surprise that the next educational model to emerge was one heavily steeped in Christian doctrine: emphasis was placed less on rigorous understanding as it was on morality, religious study, and interpretation of classical works and traditions. In essence, the purpose of education was to become “sacred” and promote the glory of God on earth. The ostensible Ideal of this era was Aristotle (whose errors and insights alike became incredibly canonical); as actually practiced, however, it was probably Ptolemy. While this model may have been beneficial at the individual level, it drew attention away from reality into a metaphysical realm, and thus caused progress in this earthly realm to stagnate for several centuries – the Early Middle Ages, also called the “Dark Ages”.
With the High Middle Ages came a shift in culture and the beginnings of the university model in Western culture. The philosophy in this era was one of syncretism and reconciliation: the union of doctrine with scientific, reasoned thought (again with an unfortunate over-reliance on the classics). The champion of this era was undoubtedly St. Thomas Aquinas. By wrenching the focus back to solving problems in the real world, society began to again limber onward. This age more than any demonstrated that religion and science can indeed coexist if neither intrude into the domain of the other.
The Renaissance, Reformation, and Scientific Revolution were proto-”Modernist” reactions against ingrained tradition and blind doctrine, and it was here that the individual as an individual began to shine. Most would choose Calvin as an exemplar, but his ideas fell more squarely into the preceding century; I would argue that Pico della Mirandola gave these eras dignity and Descartes gave them rigor.
The result of this was astounding, and has reverberated to this day. Many of the foundations for calculus, chemistry, physics, biology, art, music, and literature were set in these time periods. And why not, when the central theme is the ability of the individual, armed with the power of reason, to overcome any obstacle? In my mind, it was the first era in which it was acceptable for human beings to live as human beings should: rationally, passionately, transcendently (yet grounded in reality), and confidently, and it is to this period that I begin to look with great interest.
The Enlightenment abruptly took the focus back to the State. The new ideas and ideals applied so successfully to the natural world during the preceding era were now being tested in government. The role of education in such a society was again to train a model citizen, ultimately to become involved once again in the governmental process (noticing an association between democratic governments and a civic-focused, “participatory” system of education?), but now in the sense of dictating how he wished to be governed! Paine and Locke wrote extensively on these ideals, but it was Thomas Jefferson who actually lived them: “Educate and inform the whole mass of the people… They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty.”
As in Rome, such a nationalistic philosophy was bound to end in violence. And so it did, this time in the form of popular revolts. But people arguably had more freedom to determine their own destinies when the heads had finally stopped rolling. As in Rome, such a nationalistic philosophy was bound to end in violence. And so it did, this time in the form of popular revolts. But people arguably had more freedom to determine their own destinies when the heads had finally stopped rolling. And from the tumult, “new nations conceived in liberty” were created.
It is at the industrial revolution and with the advent of Modernity that progress in education reaches its present form (albeit one now universally mandated). The state-centric motivation remains, but the driver behind education now becomes economic rather than political in origin. It is here that the great systematization of education begins, with students treated in much the same rigorous, rule-based, inflexible manner as a product on an assembly line. The key philosophy is one that remains painfully obvious to this day: the purpose of an education is now to be useful to the workforce and thus to society: to Get a Job and Make Money.
Coupled with a system of organic solidarity, this system works reasonably well, but it represents a regression in philosophy from one in which the individual is valued as an individual to one in which one’s worth is solely determined by one’s usefulness.
Here the history ends and my argument begins: for the majority of the population, these “canned” methods work, just as the majority of components on an assembly line will fit perfectly into a functional yet clonal final product.
Nevertheless, as with any method that caters to a mean, the outliers are left by the wayside.
What is missing here is individualism, and with it, a license to be creative or different. More precisely, what is missing at this crucial point in time is something that has never been systematized: a synergy between the individual and the social.
And to finally bring this to a pitch (since I wouldn’t have such an interest if I didn’t have an idea for a better model…): this is what we are trying to do with Project Polymath: place the focus of education on becoming a more creative, more skilled individual for its own sake, yet show these individuals how they can make a difference in the world using not just what we are teaching them, but everything they are and everything we hope they will become.
The responsibility of education must ultimately lie with the student, for the student. There is more latent potential today than at any time in human history, for individuals to put towards realization of their own creative visions for themselves and for society: one aids the other.
For them and for us, now is the time that this potential must be realized.
Permalink