The four colour theorum hits the internets

Ah, a perfect microcosm of internet life.

Stage 1: 'Science News' publishes on its site an interesting-enough article on the 'four colour' theorum. Opening paragraphs, to remind you of the f.c.t. -

In 1852, botanist Francis Guthrie noticed something peculiar as he was coloring a map of counties in England. Despite the counties’ meandering shapes and varied configurations, four colors were all he needed to shade the map so that any two bordering counties were different colors. Perhaps, he speculated, four colors were enough for any map.

Little did Guthrie know the load of trouble he unleashed with his innocent conjecture. It took mathematicians nearly a century and a quarter to prove him right, and even that wasn’t enough to close the Pandora’s box Guthrie had opened. Mathematicians pulled out their markers and tried to color everything in sight.

Stage 2: An arrogant and intellectually challenged man leaps in to comment -

Imagine a map where every county was a hexagon. Every county would touch 6 other counties, and this map would, at a minimum, require 7 colors so that any two bordering counties were different colors. "It took mathematicians nearly a century and a quarter to prove him right". It took me two seconds to prove the statement in this article wrong.

Bob Smith
Mar. 19, 2009 at 1:13pm

Stage 3: Bob is politely corrected -

Sorry Bob, but you are the one in error. To need seven colors requires not only that each country touches six others, but that each of those countries touch the same of those other six, which does not occur. You have cliques of three, and you require three colors.

Colin Day
Mar. 19, 2009 at 8:42pm

And stage 4: Bob is mocked -

@BobTook me 3 seconds to read your comment, and took me a LONG time to finish laughing. This country needs to catch up in Math&Sciences. No wonder the Asians and the European are laughing at us...

Ka C
Mar. 20, 2009 at 3:40pm

Beautiful.

Your daily cynicism and despair

Hazel Blears on political blogging this week:

"Until political blogging 'adds value' to our political culture, by allowing new voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge, and until the mainstream media reports politics in a calmer, more responsible manner, it will continue to fuel a culture of cynicism and despair."

Now in what way does blogging - which, for the first time in history, allows the citizen to publish his views to a global audience in real time, for free - not allow "new voices, ideas and legitimate protest and challenge"? For fuck's sake. In its utter lack of logic and use of thought-free buzz-words - anybody want to add some value? - it's a quite incredibly vapid and stupid remark. Oh, am I "fuelling a culture of cynicism", Hazel? So sue me.

What she means, of course, is that political blogging is dominated by right wing men, and she doesn't like them and she doesn't like what they produce. The instinct of this authoritarian government, in the face of this, is to attack the bloggers, and, no doubt sometime down the line, to attempt to 'regulate' them, rather than to rejoice in this new space for democratic debate and encourage left-wing bloggers to meet the challenge of Guido, Dale et al. We've already had murmurings from the EU on blog regulation, which no doubt the Government is quietly encouraging.

Update: I realise I didn't point out above  the sinister use of the phrase "legitimate protest and challenge". It suggests Hazel thinks some political blogging is illegitimate, which is worrying in the extreme.

No, you wouldn't want your wife and servants to see this

Very interesting story about the civil servant who has been charged under the venerable Obscene Publications Act in relation to a 'fantasy porn blog' on which he apparently described, presumably with some lipsmacking relish but without images, the kidnap, rape, mutilation and murder of Girls Aloud. It's incredibly rare for a prosecution under the OPA to be brought solely in respect of the written word - a very quick Google hasn't shown anything since Chatterly, though I'm sure I'm missing a couple of reasonably well-known examples. (The Mary Whitehouse private prosecution of the 'gay Jesus' poem in the 70s was for 'a blasphemous libel'.)

It should be a fascinating case, both legally (noteworthy that the blog was hosted outside the UK) and more generally, raising important issues about freedom of expression in the 21st century: I'm surprised there hasn't been more discussion about it among the usual libertarian suspects. The infamous test of the 'tendency to deprave and corrupt' has, of course, shifted hugely since the Chatterly trial, and in view of the video material that now gets the relatively new R18 certificate, you really have to wonder how grim this bloke's blog was for the CPS to think there's a decent chance of a conviction here.

Update: a couple of quick further thoughts.

1. In case it's not clear from the above, the charge has obviously been brought because of the violence (specifically sexual violence) rather than the sexual content. I don't believe that any written description of sexual activity between consenting adults could now be considered to tend to deprave or corrupt.

2. There is no suggestion that the charge relates to this man inciting others to commit an offence. But I wonder how much of the rationale for the charge relates to a perceived threat to the members of Girls Aloud. To put it another way, if the site had exactly the same content but in relation to a fictional group, would the charge still have been brought? It would, it seems to me, have the same tendency to d or c; but would it be perceived as less dangerous, in a wider sense, and therefore not so much in the public interest to bring a prosecution?