Author Archives: Vic Grout

About Vic Grout

Unknown's avatar
Futurist. Socialist. Vegan. Doomsayer. Ethics/Futurology Professor. Author of 'CONSCIOUS' https://vicgrout.net/the-book/

The ‘Prof on a Train’ Game

The Shazam for People discussion revisited as an article, ‘Identity Voyeurism‘, in September 2015’s British Computer Society (BCS) IT Now Magazine, made all the more relevant by recent breaches of personal privacy

Grout BCS IT Now Identity Voyeurism 1

There’s more than one type of identity ‘crisis’.  Conventional identity ‘theft’ is one thing but what of identity ‘voyeurism’?  How much of ‘us’ is ‘in the shop window’ anyway?  Are we in control?  What are the risks?  And where’s it heading?

The next time you’re on public transport, try playing the ‘Prof on a Train’ (PoaT) game.  (It doesn’t really have to be a train or an academic but it’s a good example to work with.)  Take a look at the person opposite you.  Armed only with your senses, intelligence, intuition and an Internet connection, how much can you find out about them?

Well, if they’re quietly dozing in the corner, unremarkably dressed, with no distinguishing features whatsoever, you’ll probably lose.  However, any activity at all or any visible clues might give you a chance.  Are they doing, reading, saying or wearing anything?  Who’s with them?  Are they easier to identify?  Where did they get on and do you know where they’re going?  Anything odd?  Here’s the basic strategy, on which PoaT is based:

They’re reading an academic paper on a certain subject (X) and you know where they got on (Y).  A quick look at the photos on the ‘Department of X’ webpage for the ‘University of Y’ might be enough.

Continue reading


Clear as Maths!

This post follows on (loosely) from a previous discussion on maths and computing and asks what it really means to ‘prove’ something in each discipline.

An apocryphal story has an Oxbridge maths don lecturing to a group of undergraduates … After some time completely filling a huge blackboard with heavy calculus – with accompanying commentary, he turns to the class and casually notes, “So then, it’s clear that …” (the exact claim isn’t important). As he turns to resume his chalk-work, a particularly bold student enquires, “Excuse me, Professor; but is that really ‘clear’?” The don steps back and surveys his work; studying the entire board from top-left to bottom-right, with numerous head and eye movements to-and-fro – even some pointing – to cross-check various parts with each other. After a full five minutes of silent contemplation, he turns back to the students, smiles, announces, “Yes!”, and carries on as before.

So who’s defining ‘clear’ here?

Continue reading


It’s a ‘Full Stop’. Period!

The Americans say ‘period’; the British say ‘full stop’.  So, which is it?  And what does this have to do with Computing?

The USA gets a lot of stick for ‘American English’ (AE) and it’s fundamentally unfair.  Both AE and BE (‘British English’) have their origins in multiple phases of British history over the past few hundred years and both have evolved and expanded since.  Both are very different from the language of the UK in the 17th and 18th centuries and there’s even some argument for saying that AE is a closer match than BE in that it’s stayed truer to the original principles.  Bill Bryson is very worth reading on this.  In fact, general comparison is almost impossible but a more focused approach might yield something useful, so let’s try …
Take the ‘.’ character used by both versions of English at the end of a sentence.  What is it?  Is it a ‘full stop’ (BE) or a ‘period’ (AE)?  Surely, it’s just a matter of taste?  There can’t be a right or wrong, can there?  Well, let’s see …
And here comes the Computer Science: more particularly, the programming …

Continue reading


Is Inequality the Fault of Technology?

On May Day, and with the UK General Election just a few days away, some thoughts on the role technology plays (or could play) in making the world a better (or worse) place.

Owen Jones in his Guardian piece, Don’t Blame Rising Inequality on Technological Change (Wednesday 8th April, 2015) makes short work of dismissing the ridiculous arguments that the widening gap between rich and poor is an unavoidable product of technological advancement. As he points out …

“Professor Anthony Atkinson is a pioneer of the study of the economics of poverty and inequality. His latest work, Inequality: What can be done?, is an uncomfortable affront to our reigning triumphalists. His premise is straightforward: inequality is not unavoidable, a fact of life like the weather, but the product of conscious human behaviour. The explosion of inequality as a result of intentional policy decisions has been rather spectacular. Take the US, which became steadily more equal from the end of the second world war to the late 1970s. By 2012, the top 1% had more than doubled the share of national income they enjoyed in 1979, and now receive a fifth of gross US income.”

Continue reading