In light of recent repugnant comments made by both Donald trump and the boxer Manny Pacquiao, the censoring chorus once again is being sung. In particular a UK petition calling for the banning of Donnald trump to the UK has been written and will now be discussed in parliament. This is not the first time free speech has been a contentious issue in the UK, Kate Hopkins frequently makes headlines for expressing her ultra conservative views, and there have been many (albeit unsuccessful) attempts to have her prosecuted .
Here is why we need to defend free speech when people express their abhorrent views, not attack it:
Censorship only prevents the expression of these views, it will never prevent these thoughts from existing. Ironically making unpleasant comments illegal allows perpetrators of these comments to feel like victims of state oppression (and if ideas are legally sanctioned they'd be correct), and with perceived victim-hood, in their eyes, comes a twisted form of vindication that their views must be a 'truth that is too dangerous for them to hear'. The ironic paradoxical legitimization by censorship allows these ideas to propagate faster in private circles than they ever would have in public circles because rather than people basing an idea on its merit they can be fooled into basing an idea on how it is censored by the state. It is worth, also, drawing analogy to the Streisand effect which basically boils down to 'forbidden fruit tastes sweeter', censorship of ideas provokes curiosity and can in some cases result in an exposure that would never have happened if the idea had been allowed to wallow in its own irrelevance. "There is no such thing as bad publicity" is an adage that holds true to ideas more so than any other entity.
So we must ask ourselves, what is a more effective way of challenging views we consider repulsive? Do we let them fester in the hearts and minds of bigots, who, feel ever more legitimized in their world of perceived victim-hood? Or do we allow stupidity to exist, if only so that it may be challenged strongly in the "free market place of ideas"*. In fact, by censoring unpopular views we must accept that it also means that viewpoints are not directly challenged either. An argument cannot be torn down with the elegance of a water-tight rebuttal if it is not even allowed to exist because a rebuttal expressed on its own is not a rebuttal at all, but a monologue. And monologues will always look one sided to those that strongly disagree, why not allow the other idea be expressed and demonstrate the superiority of the good argument for all to see including fence sitters and those holding opposing views. That way, you might actually convert people with these unpopular views!
There is also an economic argument behind aggressive anti-free speech legislation. The budget of the state is not unlimited, and revenue comes from the taxes of wealth creators and workers. In wasting public resources on trivial matters of unpleasant views we are wasting tax payers money. Therefore, in order to practically achieve a society with more intrusive free speech laws we either have to raise taxes or divert resources from elsewhere. Keep in mind tax law is unlikely to change because of a minor amendment to free speech legislation, and that those political wheels tend to turn slowly anyway. So practically more aggressive anti-free speech law means police and legal resources diverted from elsewhere, and that potentially means we could see an increase in non-trivial crime. We must always remember there is no such thing as a free lunch, more resource allocation in one place inevitably comes at the expense of others.
Does that mean free speech should be limit free? No. Clearly we need laws to protect enticement of criminal activity, especially violence. Thiny veiled threats on individuals and collections of individuals of course should be banned as should malicious destruction of an individual's reputation. How do we draw a distinction? I admit it isn't always easy; however one must recognize the distinction between someone encouraging acts of violence on women and merely sexist viewpoints (for example). The former needs to result in prosecution, not because an unpopular idea is being expressed but because it is expressed in a way that may result in harm to individuals or groups of individuals. Think of it as the difference between a peaceful protest and a protest which encourages violence on political groups (and remember even peaceful protests can express very unpleasant ideas such as that of the Westboro baptist church).
I would also like to say that all too often people attack those that defend free speech by saying they condone such distasteful ideas. This could not be further from the truth, part of why I want free speech is so I can condemn bad ideas far more effectively than I ever would were the idea not be allowed to be expressed. Think of the almost awe inspiring moments in debate when a rebuttal is so strong and so well expressed that the opponent is left floundering in their own ineptitude (and that of their argument). Tell me glimpsing the genius behind a strong argument is ever done so well in a monologue! Incidentally, whenever a call for censorship is made you are turning an argument on that issue into one on the limits of free speech (and noting that a civil tone also is selectively favored in debate as it makes the argument seem more appealing) . The intellectual resources of mankind are just as finite as the economic ones, if one has to spend time defending the free speech then that is less time being spent attacking bad arguments (case and point this article).
We need to understand that freedom of speech really means freedom of unpopular speed. Popular speech is not at risk of being censored by the state (obviously that doesn't mean it should be), that is why as individuals we should be most vocal about the free speech of those we disagree with the most strongly.
*Quotation attributed to the youtube user Thunderf00t in his frequent defense of free speech.
Wednesday, 9 December 2015
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Medistorm Bessie
Note, this page will become unavailable after the event has occurred. A summary of the 2015 season is at:
http://quantumoverlord.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/medicane-season-2015-to-be-updated.html
15:07 21st October
There is potential for medicane development over the next few days
(Visible satellite of the region of interest; sat24.com)
A large scale trough moving eastward over the Mediterranean is expected to interact with an upper level cold pool as the system approaches Sicily or the southern part of mainland Italy. There are two scenarios suggested by the high resolution models where a warm cored tropical like system could either form in either the Tyrannian sea (west of the mainland) or alternatively in the Ionian sea which would likely be a threat for Albania or perhaps Greece. There is also a negligible possibility of development in both regions, although I am unaware of any record of two medicines coexisting concurrently.
(Possible tracks of the trough, with red arrows indicating tracks as a tropical-like system, these two possible paths represent the most likely development avenues with the orange areas the most likely places to be directly affected should a medicane develop)
17:24 22nd October
I think there is enough evidence to classify this system as a medi-storm (albeit potentially briefly). At roughly 12pm today a clear eye was visible, although it quickly diminished after interacting with the Albanian coastline. As it is, the system still resides in the Adriatic with maximum sustained windspeeds of about 30mph (below medicane threshold). The UKMO model suggests that a warm core has at the very least started to develop although the GFS does not concur (however given the size of the storm this is perhaps understandable). The location of the storm is a little dubious; the adriatic is a rather narrow stretch of water; indeed the outer rain bands penetrate well into Albania, Greece and Itally. Nevertheless, as long as the centre of the storm is over water, in theory it can develop (note the Lake Huron 'hurricane' which managed it in far more claustrophobic conditions) and the southern Adriatic is relatively deep water which does help.
(The eye visible just off the coast of Albania at around 12pm; courtesy of sat24.com)
Bessie is now moving slowly west on course for Italy and lies in the mediteranian, however does not appear to have recovered from its earlier encounter with Albania. The system is currently disorganized and its status even as a medistorm is very much borderline.
Saturday, 3 October 2015
US presidential 2016 free speech index (YT channel proxy)
The methodology is identical to that used for the UK parties (see: http://quantumoverlord.blogspot.co.uk/2015/09/uk-political-party-free-speech-index.html)
Or as a pretty graphic:
| Rank | Candidate Name | Score |
| =1 (most tolerant) | Ben Carson | 9 |
| =1 | Bernie Sanders | 9 |
| 2 | Jeb Bush | 8 |
| 3 | Hillary Clinton | 5 |
| 4 | Marco Rubio | 3 |
| 5 | Donnald Trump | 2 |
| - | Joe Biden | N/A |
Or as a pretty graphic:
Detailed information (see previous blog post for explanation of this).
Hillary Clinton (UCLRYsOHrkk5qcIhtq033bLQ)
Trailer: 1/3 (test failed, evidence of heavy moderation. There are actually only 2 comments, and one is surprisingly negative. I feel reluctant to award a point for this because I suspect this is ironically done to try and diminish the credibility of genuine critics; 1/3 is very generous)
Most popular video: 3/3
Most recent video: 1/3
Free speech index: 5/9
Donnald Trump(trump)
Trailer: 0/3
Most popular video: 1/3
Most recent video: 1/3
Free speech index: 2/9
Jeb Bush(UCxuef1vrlJMjZRrFmYyGSeQ)
Trailer: 2/3
Most popular video: 3/3
Most recent video: 3/3 (no negative comments, benefit of the doubt given due to small number of views)
Free speech index: 8/9
Joe Biden (no analysis - no obvious official channel)
Marco Rubio(UCS3pMFB7C_BujEG5xaQIZzw)
Trailer: 1/3
Most popular video: 1/3
Most recent video: 1/3
Free speech index: 3/9
Bernie Sanders(UCD_DaKNac0Ta-2PeHuoQ1uA)
Most popular video: 3/3
2nd Most popular video: 3/3 (there is no trailer)
Most recent video: 3/3
Free speech index: 9/9
Ben Carson(realbencarson)
Trailer:3/3 (no negative comment, benefit of the doubt given due to small vieweship)
Most popular video:3/3
Most recent video: 3/3
Free speech index: 9/9
Friday, 2 October 2015
Medicane season 2015 (to be updated)
Please comment (can be done anonymously) with any suggestions to improve these entries. It would be great to get some discussion going on an unofficial medicane record.
Since there is no official monitoring of the tropical storm like cyclones in the Mediterranean, here is an unofficial record with some amateur comments. Names are chosen randomly and alphabetically. The medicane season would probably start in September and end in January. Once again I emphasize I am an amateur, and there is nothing official about these thoughts below.
The designations I will use are
Invest: Disturbance with the potential to develop into a tropical system
Medistorm: Maximum sustained wind-sp0eeds below 39mph (equivalent to tropical depression)
Medicane: Maximun sustained wind-speeds between 39mph and 74mph (equivalent to tropical storm)
Major Medicane: Maximun sustained wind-speeds above 74mph (equivalent to cat1 hurricane)
Invests will be documented as they occur, but will not form part of this summary. I can make no promises that these storms are tropical-like, as I have limited means to do so. In the tropics the weakest tropical cyclone (tropical depression) simply needs to show closed circulation and deepening. For the Mediterranean this is inadequate because there is no guaranteed a cyclone is tropical-like, further baroclinically fueled storms are every bit as capable of producing strong winds (if not more so) than tropical-like systems. The difficult part is separating the mid-latitude storms from the tropical like systems. The following criteria will be taken into account:
1) Whether or not the cyclone has a warm core: cyclone phase diagrams from the following source are especially useful: moe.met.fsu.edu/cyclonephase/
2) Evidence of frontal systems. Cloud patterns associated with cold, warm and occluded fronts strongly oppose a tropical like nature. However occluded fronts may sometimes, unfortunately, mimic tropical like cloud patterns
3) Characteristic features, especially eye-wall and eye.
4) Absence of significant lightning, lightning implies strong vertical motion; in cyclones we would expect more horizontal motion. This might be a useful way to distinguish organised thunderstorms from cyclones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration: 21st November - 22nd November
Maximum sustained wind-speed (estimated): 35mph
Minimum surface pressure: 990mb
Above: track of tropical-like system in 3 hour intervals from 8pm UTC
Above: 1) Reformation of Christopher in the Adriatic (visible image), 2) Christopher at peak intensity, note the eye wall encircles most of the centre with the exception of the SE quadrant despite being so close to land. Note also the cold front lying to the south east that introduced upper level cold air that catalysed the formation of Christofer. Images courtesy of sat24.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Duration: (September 30 - October 2)
Maximum sustained wind-speed (estimated): 45mph
(left: track of alison at 6hr intervals, right: alison at peak intensity from sat24.com)
An invest moving north out of Africa on the 30th quickly developed tropical characteristics later that morning, with a very strong convection affecting the Spanish balearic islands. During the afternoon of the 30th Alison became far less organised, and seemingly affected by strong wind sheer with the majority of convection limited to the northern flank. Overnight the system became slow moving and intensified with banding features not untypical of a dvorak T3.5 system, however the system was asymmetrical with most of the thunderstorm activity well to the north and west. During the early hours of the 1st October Alison encountered an upper trough, and wind sheer fell substantially allowing significant intensification from medistorm to medicane status at approximately 3am. Sustained windspeeds of up to 45, possibly 50mph may have occurred early on the 1st when Alison reached peak intensity. Just after noon on the 1st Alison hit Sardinia. Heavy rain and flooding was associated with this system particularly on the western side of the island. As Alison made landfall she weakened significantly and opened out into a trough like system more typical of a mid-latitude depression. Nevertheless corsica saw rainfall totals exceeding 100mm. During the 2nd Alison lost most of her tropical characteristics, becoming highly asymmetrical and orientated from NW to SE. However shortly after noon and after having left Corsica, Alison briefly regained tropical characteristics and medistorm status once again, however this brief burst of new convection did not last and within hours alison had completely dissipated. The remnants of Alison encountering the relief of the alps caused further heavy rain on the mainland including severe flooding in Cannes. 17 people unfortunately lost their lives due to to floods in the south of France.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since there is no official monitoring of the tropical storm like cyclones in the Mediterranean, here is an unofficial record with some amateur comments. Names are chosen randomly and alphabetically. The medicane season would probably start in September and end in January. Once again I emphasize I am an amateur, and there is nothing official about these thoughts below.
The designations I will use are
Invest: Disturbance with the potential to develop into a tropical system
Medistorm: Maximum sustained wind-sp0eeds below 39mph (equivalent to tropical depression)
Medicane: Maximun sustained wind-speeds between 39mph and 74mph (equivalent to tropical storm)
Major Medicane: Maximun sustained wind-speeds above 74mph (equivalent to cat1 hurricane)
Invests will be documented as they occur, but will not form part of this summary. I can make no promises that these storms are tropical-like, as I have limited means to do so. In the tropics the weakest tropical cyclone (tropical depression) simply needs to show closed circulation and deepening. For the Mediterranean this is inadequate because there is no guaranteed a cyclone is tropical-like, further baroclinically fueled storms are every bit as capable of producing strong winds (if not more so) than tropical-like systems. The difficult part is separating the mid-latitude storms from the tropical like systems. The following criteria will be taken into account:
1) Whether or not the cyclone has a warm core: cyclone phase diagrams from the following source are especially useful: moe.met.fsu.edu/cyclonephase/
2) Evidence of frontal systems. Cloud patterns associated with cold, warm and occluded fronts strongly oppose a tropical like nature. However occluded fronts may sometimes, unfortunately, mimic tropical like cloud patterns
3) Characteristic features, especially eye-wall and eye.
4) Absence of significant lightning, lightning implies strong vertical motion; in cyclones we would expect more horizontal motion. This might be a useful way to distinguish organised thunderstorms from cyclones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Medistorm Christopher
Duration: 21st November - 22nd NovemberMaximum sustained wind-speed (estimated): 35mph
Minimum surface pressure: 990mb
Cold air, originally from the arctic, flooded south on the 21st behind a cold front which stretched across central and southern parts of Europe. At this time of year cold air, particularly at upper levels can be a catalyst for tropical-like development. In this case, cold air in the upper atmosphere but relatively mild air at the surface interacted in the wake of the cold front allowing the formation of a short lived system. One interesting property of this system was how rapidly it developed, with an approximate 20mb deepening in only a few hours, given its very close proximity to land one can theorize that if the system had a less enclosed environment it could potentially have developed into a major medicane; indeed at its peak intensity it arguably obtained sustained winds of 40mph (meriting full medicane status).
The system moved due SE impacting Italy after only 5 hours, however due to its small size the disruption caused by this storm was extremely limited. The remnants of Christopher moved quickly over Italian mainland, with some regeneration actually happening in the Adriatic. However this was short lived and the system once again dissipated on becoming flush with the land to the east.
Above: 1) Reformation of Christopher in the Adriatic (visible image), 2) Christopher at peak intensity, note the eye wall encircles most of the centre with the exception of the SE quadrant despite being so close to land. Note also the cold front lying to the south east that introduced upper level cold air that catalysed the formation of Christofer. Images courtesy of sat24.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Diary entry: http://quantumoverlord.blogspot.co.uk/2015/10/invest02.html
Medistorm Bessie
Duration: 22nd October
Maximun sustained wind-speed (estimated): 30mph
Minimum surface pressure: 998mb
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Maximun sustained wind-speed (estimated): 30mph
Minimum surface pressure: 998mb
 |
| Above: track of tropical-like system in 6 hour intervals |
Unusually moist air moving out of Tunisia interacted with the Mediteranian sea on the 21st of October. Thunderstorms were particularly widespread and a frontal based system aided the development of storms on both sides of the Adriatic. Cold air at the 500mb level also provided a good environment for tropical-like development, however it was not until 10am on the 22nd of October that evidence of said development had occurred. Convective clouds started to rotate around a centre of circulation in the south Adriatic sea and deepening of the cyclone occurred (presumably due to non-baroclinic means). An eye marking the centre of the cyclone was visible at about 12pm, although very quickly diminished after the system moved close to the Albanian coastline. The system did, however, return westward and moved towards Italy making landfall at around 5pm UTC. During this journey the system became disorganized and dissipated completely after making landfall. The biggest hazard associated with this system was the 'feeder' storms on its periphery which were tempestuous (a tornado was even spotted close to Athens). Overall this system was fairly underwhelming and could only be marginally considered a medistorm for a period of 7 hours.
|
 |
| Medistorm Bessie at 11:55 at her peak strength (courtesy of sat24.com) |
Medicane Alison
Duration: (September 30 - October 2)Maximum sustained wind-speed (estimated): 45mph
An invest moving north out of Africa on the 30th quickly developed tropical characteristics later that morning, with a very strong convection affecting the Spanish balearic islands. During the afternoon of the 30th Alison became far less organised, and seemingly affected by strong wind sheer with the majority of convection limited to the northern flank. Overnight the system became slow moving and intensified with banding features not untypical of a dvorak T3.5 system, however the system was asymmetrical with most of the thunderstorm activity well to the north and west. During the early hours of the 1st October Alison encountered an upper trough, and wind sheer fell substantially allowing significant intensification from medistorm to medicane status at approximately 3am. Sustained windspeeds of up to 45, possibly 50mph may have occurred early on the 1st when Alison reached peak intensity. Just after noon on the 1st Alison hit Sardinia. Heavy rain and flooding was associated with this system particularly on the western side of the island. As Alison made landfall she weakened significantly and opened out into a trough like system more typical of a mid-latitude depression. Nevertheless corsica saw rainfall totals exceeding 100mm. During the 2nd Alison lost most of her tropical characteristics, becoming highly asymmetrical and orientated from NW to SE. However shortly after noon and after having left Corsica, Alison briefly regained tropical characteristics and medistorm status once again, however this brief burst of new convection did not last and within hours alison had completely dissipated. The remnants of Alison encountering the relief of the alps caused further heavy rain on the mainland including severe flooding in Cannes. 17 people unfortunately lost their lives due to to floods in the south of France.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tuesday, 29 September 2015
UK political party Free speech index (Youtube proxy). My rankings.
For those that just want the league table here it is:
Or as a nice pretty graphic.
Credit goes to thunderf00t for giving me this idea. Thunderf00t made the point in a 2012 (US) election video that essentially the management of a Youtube channel gives a crude proxy into the attitudes of the political parties attitudes towards free speech. In the UK I think this is even more relevant, since political parties play a bigger role than they do in the states (conversely the president is more important than our prime minister). Thus, I am going to rank the UK political parties by how they choose to manage there channels; after-all why should a party whose policy it is to ban comments be anymore tolerant to free speech where it actually matters?
For each YouTube channel I will select 3 videos; the 'trailer/default' video, the most popular video, and the most recent video. I will select them in this respective order, and if it happens that the most popular video is also the trailer then I will select the 2nd most popular video (similar logic is also used in the case of the most recent video). Each video will be allocated points on the following basis.
Comments are enabled. +1
Ratings are enabled. +1
There is at least one negative comment posted: +1 (this is a crude test for post-hoc comment moderation)
Also in the event that comments are enabled I will perform a test with a 2nd account to see if despite comments being enabled, they are selectively being moderated (the comment I will leave will be neutral and non-inflammatory but not supportive in nature*). If the test is passed then there is no penalty. However if the test is failed then a penalty is applied:
If the moderation is not excessive: -1
If there are relatively few and only positive comments (typically with very large ratings): -2
A further one point penalty will be applied to the final score if anything else about the channel is disabled (for example #subscribers or stats on any video). This is far less serious than disabling comments or ratings and is arguably more about transparency (however I have noticed it is a fairly good proxy for censorship on Youtube channels in general). Thus a maximum of 1 point only may be deducted in this way.
Therefore the maximum score a party can achieve is 9, if everything is enabled and there is no evidence of selection. The lowest score a party can achieve is -4, if ratings are disabled and comments are manipulated to portray everything in a positive light.
*It doesn't really matter what the comment is, since this only tests for automatic comment restriction. However I made sure my comments were constructed such that they wouldn't get caught in YouTube's spam filter.
Finally this analysis is limited only to primary YT channels, i.e the most popular and most viewed and the ones I expect most reflect party policy. Obviously this is not perfect, but it is really the best of a bad situation as a party might have a large number of minor secondary channels.
Format: Name of party (name of YT channel)
The Conservative Party (webcameronuk)
Trailer: 0/3
Most popular video: 0/3
Most recent video: 0/3
Free speech index: 0/9
The Labor party (theuklabourparty)
Trailer: 3/3
Most popular video: 0/3 (test failed and evidence of excessive moderation)
Most recent video: 2/3
Free speech index: 5/9
The liberal democrats (LibDem)
Trailer: 3/3
Most popular video: 3/3
Most recent video: 3/3
Free speech index: 9/9
The Green party (greenpartyew)
Trailer: 3/3
Most popular video: 3/3
Most recent video: 3/3 (no negative comments but the benefit of the doubt has been given due to the small number of views)
Free speech index: 9/9
Free speech index: 8/9 (the subscriber number is hidden).
Finally the BNP who are little more than a joke party these days. However they are the far-right extreme nationalist party of the UK so it will be interesting.
The BNP party (bnptv)
Trailer: 1/3
Most popular video: -1/3 (test failed and heavy moderation very evident. There is one *borderline* negative comment, however given that it also contains strong praise for the video and in light of the test being failed I cannot count it).
Most recent video: 1/3 (test failed and heavy moderation once again obvious. There is one negative comment that merits a point as it is not borderline this time. However 1/3 is a very generous score considering).
Free speech index: 1/9
| Rank | Party Name | Score |
| =1 (most tolerant) | Green | 9 |
| =1 | Liberal Democrats | 9 |
| =1 | UKIP | 9 |
| 2 | SNP | 8 |
| 3 | Labor | 5 |
| 4 | BNP | 1 |
| 5 | Conservative | 0 |
Or as a nice pretty graphic.
Credit goes to thunderf00t for giving me this idea. Thunderf00t made the point in a 2012 (US) election video that essentially the management of a Youtube channel gives a crude proxy into the attitudes of the political parties attitudes towards free speech. In the UK I think this is even more relevant, since political parties play a bigger role than they do in the states (conversely the president is more important than our prime minister). Thus, I am going to rank the UK political parties by how they choose to manage there channels; after-all why should a party whose policy it is to ban comments be anymore tolerant to free speech where it actually matters?
For each YouTube channel I will select 3 videos; the 'trailer/default' video, the most popular video, and the most recent video. I will select them in this respective order, and if it happens that the most popular video is also the trailer then I will select the 2nd most popular video (similar logic is also used in the case of the most recent video). Each video will be allocated points on the following basis.
Comments are enabled. +1
Ratings are enabled. +1
There is at least one negative comment posted: +1 (this is a crude test for post-hoc comment moderation)
Also in the event that comments are enabled I will perform a test with a 2nd account to see if despite comments being enabled, they are selectively being moderated (the comment I will leave will be neutral and non-inflammatory but not supportive in nature*). If the test is passed then there is no penalty. However if the test is failed then a penalty is applied:
If the moderation is not excessive: -1
If there are relatively few and only positive comments (typically with very large ratings): -2
A further one point penalty will be applied to the final score if anything else about the channel is disabled (for example #subscribers or stats on any video). This is far less serious than disabling comments or ratings and is arguably more about transparency (however I have noticed it is a fairly good proxy for censorship on Youtube channels in general). Thus a maximum of 1 point only may be deducted in this way.
Therefore the maximum score a party can achieve is 9, if everything is enabled and there is no evidence of selection. The lowest score a party can achieve is -4, if ratings are disabled and comments are manipulated to portray everything in a positive light.
*It doesn't really matter what the comment is, since this only tests for automatic comment restriction. However I made sure my comments were constructed such that they wouldn't get caught in YouTube's spam filter.
Finally this analysis is limited only to primary YT channels, i.e the most popular and most viewed and the ones I expect most reflect party policy. Obviously this is not perfect, but it is really the best of a bad situation as a party might have a large number of minor secondary channels.
Format: Name of party (name of YT channel)
The Conservative Party (webcameronuk)
Trailer: 0/3
Most popular video: 0/3
Most recent video: 0/3
Free speech index: 0/9
The Labor party (theuklabourparty)
Trailer: 3/3
Most popular video: 0/3 (test failed and evidence of excessive moderation)
Most recent video: 2/3
Free speech index: 5/9
The liberal democrats (LibDem)
Trailer: 3/3
Most popular video: 3/3
Most recent video: 3/3
Free speech index: 9/9
The Green party (greenpartyew)
Trailer: 3/3
Most popular video: 3/3
Most recent video: 3/3 (no negative comments but the benefit of the doubt has been given due to the small number of views)
Free speech index: 9/9
The UKIP party (ukipofficial)
Trailer: 3/3 (only 1 negative comment and it was borderline, benefit of the doubt given due to small number of views.)
Most popular video: 3/3
Most recent video: 3/3
Free speech index: 9/9
The SNP party (TheSnp)
Trailer: 3/3
Most popular video: 3/3
Most recent video: 3/3Free speech index: 8/9 (the subscriber number is hidden).
Finally the BNP who are little more than a joke party these days. However they are the far-right extreme nationalist party of the UK so it will be interesting.
The BNP party (bnptv)
Trailer: 1/3
Most popular video: -1/3 (test failed and heavy moderation very evident. There is one *borderline* negative comment, however given that it also contains strong praise for the video and in light of the test being failed I cannot count it).
Most recent video: 1/3 (test failed and heavy moderation once again obvious. There is one negative comment that merits a point as it is not borderline this time. However 1/3 is a very generous score considering).
Free speech index: 1/9
Monday, 28 September 2015
Saturday, 19 September 2015
Best Free movie editor software (work in progress - expect updates to this post)
While open source and free film edit software is never going to be able to compete professionally, here are some of the best alternatives and some pros and cons of the software. Each product is scored in terms of the features available, the stability of the program and how easy it is to start editing.
Features: 1/5
Stability: 5/5
Learning curve: 5/5
While not video editing software per say, camstudio is amazing at what it does - record your screen view. It also has webcam and annotation functionality, but the main desirable here is that there is no watermark or limitations associated with this product which is fairly unique for this kind of software. There are several disadvantages unfortunately; firstly it has a file-size limit which it does not warn you about (so entire recordings can actually be lost if they go on for too long at too high quality), secondly rounding errors from the frame-rate capture and playback rate can cause the audio and video to desyncronise (however with careful selection of the frame rate this problem can be avoided entirely), and finally the product is not at all stable - in particular focus on a secondary program it uses for recording can cause the software to crash, however with care this problem can be avoided. Unfortunately there is a SERIOUS MALWARE concern associated with the modern version of this product which means I cannot recommend it at all. If you can get your hands on an old pre 2012 version of this product it is fantastic (as I have), however do NOT download the up to date version, it is not worth the risk.
Features: 2/5 but excellent as a screen recorder.
Stability: 0/5 including MALWARE/VIRUS concerns on NEW versions (very old versions are fine)
Learning curve: 5/5
If you chose to download this product (particularly a new version) you do so AT YOUR OWN RISK. Again, if you can find an older version this product is well worth the time, however it is not worth the risk for a newer version.
Features: 3/5
Stability: 2/5
Learning curve: 4/5
Features: 3/5 (but is keyframe based unlike VSDC)
Stability: 4/5
Learning curve: 3/5
Features: 3/5 (would be 5/5 without restrictions)
Stability: 5/5
Learning curve: 4/5
Windows live movie maker
This auto-installed piece of software is surprisingly good at doing basic tasks. In particular the clip splitting feature is very easy to use and allows precise cutting. Another really cool feature is the ability to change the playback speed of individual clips including the audio. Export options are varied and include the ability to upload directly to Youtube. The main downside is the surprising absence of the timeline (which was actually available in previous versions) and of more advanced features in general.Features: 1/5
Stability: 5/5
Learning curve: 5/5
CamStudio recorder (old version 2.6) (for screen recording)
While not video editing software per say, camstudio is amazing at what it does - record your screen view. It also has webcam and annotation functionality, but the main desirable here is that there is no watermark or limitations associated with this product which is fairly unique for this kind of software. There are several disadvantages unfortunately; firstly it has a file-size limit which it does not warn you about (so entire recordings can actually be lost if they go on for too long at too high quality), secondly rounding errors from the frame-rate capture and playback rate can cause the audio and video to desyncronise (however with careful selection of the frame rate this problem can be avoided entirely), and finally the product is not at all stable - in particular focus on a secondary program it uses for recording can cause the software to crash, however with care this problem can be avoided. Unfortunately there is a SERIOUS MALWARE concern associated with the modern version of this product which means I cannot recommend it at all. If you can get your hands on an old pre 2012 version of this product it is fantastic (as I have), however do NOT download the up to date version, it is not worth the risk.
Features: 2/5 but excellent as a screen recorder.
Stability: 0/5 including MALWARE/VIRUS concerns on NEW versions (very old versions are fine)
Learning curve: 5/5
If you chose to download this product (particularly a new version) you do so AT YOUR OWN RISK. Again, if you can find an older version this product is well worth the time, however it is not worth the risk for a newer version.
VSDC free movie editor
Essentially a far more advanced version of movie maker, this product boasts an impressive range of features including allowing multiple media (including videos) to be placed on the same canvas and an array of impressive effects including rotation and movement of objects on the canvas. The editor has timeline functionality which is a plus, however while its cutting and splicing feature is slightly more advanced than movie-maker I do not prefer it as it can be very counter-intuitive. The timeline also does not allow media to snap into place, so unfavorable gaps have to be edited manually which can be a pain. The editor does also have useful audio effects, however will not allow audio to be decoupled from a video (although it does allow audio to be inserted) as movie maker will. While the effects make this program very attractive, it has fairly low stability and saving regularly is a must as unsaved files will be lost in the event the program crashes (which it will from time to time).Features: 3/5
Stability: 2/5
Learning curve: 4/5
Lightworks
Comes across as being quite a serious attempt to rival proffesional video making software, and in terms of appearance is quite good at conveying that (although the inability to minimize the window is pretentious and annoying). The range of effects (including keying and 3D) is quite impressive though will seriously underwhelm a serious producer, and keyframe functionality in particular makes this an attractive free alternative. For simple tasks such as cutting clips the software comes across as a bit cumbersome though and unnecessarily complicated.Features: 3/5 (but is keyframe based unlike VSDC)
Stability: 4/5
Learning curve: 3/5
Hit film express 3/ Hit film Pro (demo)
The effects library in the demo version is 2nd to none, and with a simple learning curve it almost seems too good to be true. Unfortunately it is too good to be true, with the demo version (despite being unlimited) only allowing 30 second 480p exports, and only then to Youtube! The express version while having no restrictions in exporting has a massively stripped down effects library which may be slightly inferior to light works. Still, if you want to impress in short-bursts this product is not going to be matched by any other, and hit film 3 express is a very strong movie editor in its own right although will seem disappointing in comparison. My only real qualm with the product itself (as opposed to its restrictions) is that effects cannot be applied directly to a clip in a timeline (with intuitive layers) but have to be applied to a new composite, actually its fairly similar to VSDC in this regard but far less intuitive especially as key-framing works for a select few things on the timeline (but in reality you have to edit in composite mode).Features: 3/5 (would be 5/5 without restrictions)
Stability: 5/5
Learning curve: 4/5
Blender
Turns out I was not being 100% honest when I said the above was 2nd to none, and blender is just as capable as Hit film in terms of effects, and is superior in terms of 3D effects. AND there are no restrictions. So what's the catch? A downright daunting learning curve, that will force you to spend hours in tutorials before you can do something remotely presentable. However should you master this product, the free particle engine, texturing abilities, and even the ability to code directly in python makes this product every bit as good as its commercial rivals (and probably better). The trouble is, trying to set this up as a video editor will require alot of work, and 2D effects, while possible are arguably harder to perform (especially for the beginner) than 3D effects.
Features: 5/5
Stability: 5/5
Learning curve: 0/5
XSplit Broadcaster (for livestreaming)
More accurately a live-stream editor rather than a video editor. For simple live streaming tasks it is great at what it does and is relatively simple to setup streams directly to Youtube Live. The express version is relatively stripped down in terms of features but does support keying, 3 scenes, and a wide range of media that would satisfy most. Stability is usually good although to ensure a stable live stream sometimes fine tuning has to be done which is not obvious.
Features: 3/5
Stability: 4/5
Learning curve: 4/5
Saturday, 15 August 2015
My own personal university league table (2016)
In the past I have published a master league table based on a conglomeration of national and international tables. To my reckoning no one has made a master table that has as many references as mine did (10 tables in all), however this time I have finally made a league table of my own.
This league table is based on the 2015 clearing vacancies. In essence the methodology is simplicity itself; simply divide the number of vacancies by the total number of courses available. However in practice it proved more difficult, data collection does take some time, and despite the fact that most of it was done at 1am in the morning (when hopefully neither UCAS or the Universities were accepting clearing offers) this cannot be guaranteed, so there is a possibility that there is some alphabetical bias going on.
League tables are a controversial subject by nature. My view is that people on both sides of the debate (particularly the anti league table position) can over exaggerate both the benefits and the shortcomings. League tables are not useless, they give a quantitative measure of (mostly) undergraduate performance of the institution. Right from the get go this is always going to be superior to a vague qualitative notion of prestige if only because the position of a university is determined by empirical data rather than hearsay (even if the methodology of league tables is shoddy, at least it exists to criticize!). On the other hand, students should not be overly concerned about whether their institution is 10th or 20th on any given table (or even my master table!), other factors such as the individual course and whether or not a student likes the ethos and atmosphere of the institution is also very important. Use league tables as a guide; do not dismiss them but do not treat them as gospel and ideally read the methodology of each table and decide for yourself whether the ranking is a good proxy for what you are looking for in your university. With all this in mind one can see the use of a ranking based on clearing places: Universities with a lower proportion of vacancies are more attractive to prospective students and thus in their eyes have higher prestige (one would hope this is due to merits of the university). Of course it isn't a perfect system, universities may have a large number of clearing places because they want to poach students with very high grades after results day (although overachieving students do have the option of using a separate system called 'adjustment' as an alternative to clearing) or simply have a weakness in a particular subject area which is not representative of the university as a whole. Therefore it might be better to think of this as a 'prestige' rating (albeit a very imperfect one) than a league table, in any case the vast majority of league tables use more than one criteria (indeed this 'league table' wouldn't meet the basic requirements necessary to be included in my own master table).
The UCAS clearing search function was used on the 15th of August to search by institution for the number of courses available in 2015 clearing, and total courses available in 2015. This was primarily done at ~2-3am UK time for two reasons: firstly any processing done by either UCAS or the universities themselves which could result in a time dependence of the listings was minimized, and secondly to request the website at a time when there would be low traffic from students who actually require use of the service. Unfortunately some universities were so efficient that most clearing places had already gone by that time; in order to take this into account information regarding Russel group Universities from the Daily Telegraph was used to provide supplementary information about the number of places available shortly after results day (on the 12th). While the ranking is based almost entirely on the search conducted on the 15th, some slight adjustments in rankings were performed based on this supplementary data when the discrepancy was very large. The individual adjustments are listed below along with some other outstanding anomalies. If the exception is not listed here, assume any discrepancy was not considered significant enough to justify messing with the rankings based on data collected on the 15th.
Surrey had zero clearing places available on the 15th, and is not a Russel group university (the only non-Russel group institution apart from the filled St Andrews to be so high in the table) so I have no information available about exactly how many courses were open on results day. However, in 2013 there were about 40 courses available which corresponds to about 85% of courses unavailable. Assuming this figure puts Surrey in the top 15 anyway, but since there is no usable data from 2015 I have kept surrey in 8th place, just below the other universities with no clearing spaces.
KCL, Loughborough and Birmingham:
These three universities are close in the table to begin with anyway. The supplementary data indicates that Birmingham should probably be just above KCL, but its questionable whether this is significant or not. On balance these three institutions (with Loughborough in the middle originally) cannot be differentiated and so were given the same ranking.
Southhampton:
Southampton had a lot of clearing places available on results day. When compared directly with the other Russel group university Sheffield (a university with a similar number of available courses) it is very hard to justify putting Southampton so far above Sheffield (much less 21 places). On results day Southampton probably had a higher proportion of courses available than Sheffield so it is placed one place below Sheffield. Unfortunately this placement is completely arbitrary with respect to non-Russel group institutions and one could argue that Southampton should be rewarded for filling its places up quickly. This is definitely the university that highlights the weakness of this ranking system the most.
Exeter:
Bizarrely UCAS did not list the correct total number of courses for this university in 2015, so a 2016 search had to be used. This has not affected the ranking of this institution.
The distribution of results is rather interesting, appearing to be bi-modal in nature (see histogram below). In real terms this implies there are a significant number of institutions that are both oversubscribed and under-subscribed, and relatively few that have a roughly equal number of filled and unfilled courses. For the universities with many vacancies (left of histogram), the current system does not seem ideal with students essentially circumnavigating the application system. Those with the vast majority of courses filled, may simply not need clearing because the universities are so popular with prospective students.
In terms of how this proxy compares with a multi criterion league table, below a snapshot from the complete university guide (2016) is shown:
Introduction
This league table is based on the 2015 clearing vacancies. In essence the methodology is simplicity itself; simply divide the number of vacancies by the total number of courses available. However in practice it proved more difficult, data collection does take some time, and despite the fact that most of it was done at 1am in the morning (when hopefully neither UCAS or the Universities were accepting clearing offers) this cannot be guaranteed, so there is a possibility that there is some alphabetical bias going on.
Motivation
Methodology
Health warning Regarding the supplementary data
Rather weirdly there is a discrepancy between the total number of courses offered given through UCAS, the daily telegraph clearing search function, and the Russel group places available listed by the daily telegraph on the 12th. Bizarrely sometimes the number of clearing places offered actually exceeded the total number of courses available by UCAS. The discrepancy cannot be accounted for by controlling for only Undergraduate degrees, full time degrees, or single subjects only. As a result a weighting based on the total number of courses in UCAS could be used to roughly compare the Russel group universities (with clearing places), however any cross comparison between Russel group and non Russel group universities cannot be justified, therefore adjustments in the ranking have only been made in the event that the Russel group only ranking is out of order AND the change in places between the 12th and 15th would have to have been significant.Exceptions
Surrey:Surrey had zero clearing places available on the 15th, and is not a Russel group university (the only non-Russel group institution apart from the filled St Andrews to be so high in the table) so I have no information available about exactly how many courses were open on results day. However, in 2013 there were about 40 courses available which corresponds to about 85% of courses unavailable. Assuming this figure puts Surrey in the top 15 anyway, but since there is no usable data from 2015 I have kept surrey in 8th place, just below the other universities with no clearing spaces.
KCL, Loughborough and Birmingham:
These three universities are close in the table to begin with anyway. The supplementary data indicates that Birmingham should probably be just above KCL, but its questionable whether this is significant or not. On balance these three institutions (with Loughborough in the middle originally) cannot be differentiated and so were given the same ranking.
Southhampton:
Southampton had a lot of clearing places available on results day. When compared directly with the other Russel group university Sheffield (a university with a similar number of available courses) it is very hard to justify putting Southampton so far above Sheffield (much less 21 places). On results day Southampton probably had a higher proportion of courses available than Sheffield so it is placed one place below Sheffield. Unfortunately this placement is completely arbitrary with respect to non-Russel group institutions and one could argue that Southampton should be rewarded for filling its places up quickly. This is definitely the university that highlights the weakness of this ranking system the most.
Exeter:
Bizarrely UCAS did not list the correct total number of courses for this university in 2015, so a 2016 search had to be used. This has not affected the ranking of this institution.
Miscellaneous
Universities are ordered alphabetically in the event of a tie. Note that only universities that appeared in the 2016 Complete University Guide also appear here, there is every possibility that small specialist institutions would otherwise do very well in this ranking were they to be listed here.
General health warning
Please do not take the positions of universities here too seriously, or base important judgments on this table. This should primarily be for interest purposes; how people interpret the results here in terms of 'quantitative prestige' is up for debate. Keep in mind also, that this is a single-criterion league table. In general league tables use more than one criteria (and typically more than five). Please take the positions here with a rather large pinch of salt.
Results
The research intensive Russel group universities tend to (colourd yellow), perhaps unsurprisingly, be very popular choices among students and cluster towards the top of the table with few (if any) vacancies. The only university that did not enter clearing, and is also not in the Russel group is St Andrews (a member of the disbanded 1994 group).
| 115 | Liverpool Hope | 0.6 |
| 116 | Derby | 0.6 |
| 117 | Aberystwyth | 0.6 |
| 118 | Sussex | 0.5 |
| 119 | Trinity Saint David | 0.4 |
| 120 | Sunderland | 0.1 |
| 121 | Harper Adams | 0.0 |
| 122 | Newman | 0.0 |
| 123 | Nottingham trent | 0.0 |
| 124 | Royal Agicultural | 0.0 |
| 125 | Royal Holloway | 0.0 |
| 126 | St Mark and St John | 0.0 |
The distribution of results is rather interesting, appearing to be bi-modal in nature (see histogram below). In real terms this implies there are a significant number of institutions that are both oversubscribed and under-subscribed, and relatively few that have a roughly equal number of filled and unfilled courses. For the universities with many vacancies (left of histogram), the current system does not seem ideal with students essentially circumnavigating the application system. Those with the vast majority of courses filled, may simply not need clearing because the universities are so popular with prospective students.
In terms of how this proxy compares with a multi criterion league table, below a snapshot from the complete university guide (2016) is shown:
In the top 10 rankings the same 7 universities appear, and in the top 20 rankings the same 14 universities appear (and all the top 10 of my rankings appear in the top 20 of CUG). For universities that rank lower in the table, however, there is a greater divergence between the tables. Of course the clearing table is unable to distinguish between the top 7 universities.
References and Acknowledgements
1 (http://search.ucas.com/): In finding available clearing places (2015) and total number of courses for each university (2015)
2 (http://surrey.ac.uk/clearing and its cache from 2013 https://web.archive.org/web/20130814062109/http://surrey.ac.uk/clearing): Clearing information from Surrey University
3 (http://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/): The same universities hold positions in this table as in the complete university guide.
4 (http://clearing.telegraph.co.uk/InstitutionSearch.aspx): Telegraph clearing search
5 ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationpicturegalleries/11798242/Russell-Group-universities-in-Clearing-2015.html): Russel group universities in clearing on results day.
Terms of Use: Please link back to this post if you wish to quote any of the text here or results from the league table. Everything written here is in my own words. Please do not use the information here to make any important decisions regarding applications, this is for interest purposes only.
Wednesday, 27 May 2015
Two dimensional political views. The General election Manifestoes.
Introduction
Another one of my little experiments for you to enjoy or laugh at the shortcomings of. I quite like the 2D political compass, and I thought it would be interesting to see where all the parties lie. Essentially instead of a one dimensional left/right wing we can use two vectors instead to better describe a political view. In particular an idea popularised by Nolan uses economic liberty on one axis with high levels of freedom (neo-liberalism) described as 'right' wing and low levels of freedom (socialism) described as 'left' wing. However one can also plot personal levels of freedom separately. Weirdly, the 'left' wing here usually corresponds to greater levels of personal freedom however it is less confusing to use a vertical axis with libertarianism on the bottom and authoritarianism on the top.
To see more detail about this set-up I suggest looking at
The original political compass quiz does give positions however, I wanted to do an up to date version based on the manifestos.
I used this quiz instead though, because it gives the option of neutral and seems less overtly 'Americanized' than the original one:
The results are still plotted on the crowd chart.
Economic/Social politics
In order to answer the questions I read through the relevant bits of the manifesto and answered the questions as best as I could. Vague affirmative or negative answers were scored agree/disagree, obvious specific points were scored strongly agree/strongly disagree. The positions were weighted according to how often they appeared in the manifesto. If it was a couple of words then it was 'not important', whereas an entire chapter was rated as 'very important'. In the case where the issue was not addressed at all the answer was answered 'neutral' and declared completely unimportant. The somewhat surprising results are given:
Note I multiplied each coordinate by two for ease of viewing, in reality the parties are actually not that far away from each other and the manifestos had a surprising amount of common ground.
Keep in mind this result is only based on the manifestos, but it might interest people that the position in 2D space was just as much determined about what was not mentioned in the manifesto (and therefore relegated to the default low priority 'neutral' answer) as what was mentioned. Please also note, that this quiz despite being far more UK appropriate was designed for America, this is why all the parties are left wing (at least that's my hypothesis), the relative positions are more important than the absolute ones.
Firstly it should not surprise anyone that the Tories are more right wing than the Labour party, however what struck me is that there really were relatively few policy differences with regard to the economy, just that Labour seemed to lack any enthusiasm in this area, much less of the manifesto was devoted to the economy and when answers were given they were far more vague. However both the Tories and Labour agreed that we need a strong economy. There was an area which Labour was actually the most right wing party and that was on pensions. Interestingly the Labour party seemed to be more willing to allow pensions to fluctuate with the market, however this may simply represent the economical lack of interest which seemed to be a recurring theme, rather than Labour actually being right wing on this issue.
The fact that the liberal democrats come out as right of the Tories in their manifesto should be deeply worrying for them, and really pushes the point home how much damage the coalition seemed to do. Nevertheless it is really surprising to me that this is the case, I suspect this may partly be explained by the contrasting views on Europe. The Tories are Euroskeptics, unlike the lib dems, so they devoted more of their manifesto to the issue of a reform in Europe. Therefore the lib dem emphasis on EU free trade agreements may give the (false?) impression the liberal democrats are more right wing than they actually are. Still, it is very unhealthy for the party.
All the parties come across as being rather authoritarian, with the exception of UKIP. In Labour and the conservatives this is indicated by a want for more aggressive laws against extremism, something that the Liberal democrats described as potentially 'chilling' to free speech. The Tory idea we have heard recently 'we shouldn't just let people live their lives even if they are not doing anything criminal' comes across somewhat in their manifesto, this together with a higher tolerance to moral conservatism is probably why the Tory party is more authoritarian than labour (albeit slightly).
The lib dems in this regard are actually a bit of a paradox, they seem to struggle to juggle the aggressive 'labour' need for enforcing equality of outcome, with the 'liberal' need to live and let live. The lib dem manifesto could have a great argument with itself! On the one hand introducing new laws to guarantee free speech while at the same time wanting to to criminalise homophobic language! It is this internal battle between progressivism and libertarianism which I think prevents the lib dems from being the most libertarian party. On the other hand the elements of moral conservatism in UKIP that would clearly retard its efforts to be seen as a libertarian party are absent in the manifesto, there is, for example, no reference to the death penalty or gay marriage which would presumably have pushed UKIP to the north.
Hope you all found this interesting, I wanted to do something like this before GE but I honestly didn't have time with exams. I do it now, just because its interesting to me. Any criticism and comments welcome.
Millitary/culture politics.
The test also allows you to plot two additional indices. One measuring interventionism and the other described as 'cultural liberalism'. I think in a UK context that would be more appropriately described as progressivism and whatever the opposite of that is (I'm guessing meritism). Progressives would generally be in favour of affirmative action, tougher discrimination laws and quotas whereas a meritist would be more apathetic.
I won't comment for too much on this one. Liberal democrat being pacifist compared to Labour and conservative is unsurprising, the progressive politics of LibLab compared to Conkip is also to be expected. The one odd thing is that UKIP is listed as interventionist, when by all accounts it is pacifist. I think this is a flaw in the quiz, parties in favour of military expansion is used as a proxy for interventionism (which is reasonable in general), however UKIP is odd in that it wants increased military spending, yet reduced foreign intervention; a concept that highlights the simplicity of this quiz unfortunately.
References:
The original quiz. Also used to plot the results more clearly:
The quiz used in these results:
Labour manifesto: www.labour.org.uk/manifesto2015
Tory manifesto: https://www.conservatives.com/Manifesto
Lib dem manifesto: http://www.libdems.org.uk/manifesto
UKIP manifesto: http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)