Benjamin Mako Hill of the Free Software Foundation (FSF) has written convincingly about what he calls “antifeatures”. Antifeatures are features that the user doesn't want, like limiting the number of concurrent users on a server, or showing adverts or splash screens, or anti-piracy limitations. The developers of the product have spent extra resources implementing these antifeatures, because they help to prop up the developer's business model, to the detriment of the user.
In the case of adverts, they allow the vendor to sell the user's time and attention to third parties. In the case of arbitrary limits, they allow the vendor to charge users to take out the antifeature. In the case of splash screens, they take the user's time and attention to fulfil the vendor's marketing goals. In the case of anti-piracy limitations, they make the product less useful to the customer by restricting his fair-use rights or making him authenticate himself to the software with a CD key or an internet connection, because the vendor believes all its customers are criminals.
Mr. Hill claims that free software can't have antifeatures. Because the user has the freedom to change the product, and because it is easier to disable the antifeature than to enable it, he will always be able to publish a modified version without that feature.
In fact, publication of modified versions is number three of the FSF's four freedoms, as listed in their definition of free software. That article also uses the often-heard gloss that the “free” in “free software” is as in the phrase “free speech”, not “free beer”: that is, it describes the user being free to act rather than the software being free of charge. Not all free-to-use software is free in this sense, and not all free software is free-to-use.
The FSF and its GNU project often say that “free software needs free documentation”. So, it's quite odd that the FSF should create the GNU Free Documentation License (FDL), of which version 1.3 has recently been announced. On the face of it, a free license for documentation sounds like a good idea, and perfectly fits the phrase “free as in speech”. But GNU FDL contains some very controversial “optional” features.
It allows the author of a work under such a license to declare that one or more sections are “Invariant Sections”, which means that users do not have the freedom to modify or remove these sections. The author may make similar declarations for “Front-Cover Texts” or “Back-Cover Texts”. Richard Stallman gives some advice on these features, which lists examples of their use.
He mentions that the intended use of Invariant Sections is so that you (or rather he, as the maintainer of GNU Emacs) can include a copy of the GNU Manifesto: that is, marketing material for the original vendor of the product. He suggests that Cover Texts be used to advertise the commercial sponsor of authors of the work.
I say that both of these uses are antifeatures. They are additional work the vendor performs that make the product less useful to the end user. (If you think they don't make it less useful, consider that if this were the case, there would be no need for special licensing provisions preventing their removal.)
A truly free documentation license would prevent the existence of antifeatures by the mechanism Mr. Hill describes. Clearly the GNU Free Documentation License, when used with Invariant Sections or Cover Texts, is not a free documentation license. It removes the guarantee that users can make improvements and distribute those improvements to benefit the community.
I'm not the only one who says this. The Debian Project has resolved that GNU FDL-licensed works with Invariant Sections or Cover Texts do not meet the [Debian Free Software Guidelines][dfsg] (DFSG), which broadly agree with the FSF's four freedoms. This entails that such works (including the GNU Emacs manual) cannot be distributed in the main Debian archive.
But the FSF's attitude to non-free speech doesn't end with Back-Cover Texts. The FSF believes that software should be free, but that this doesn't apply to works of art, essays, scientific papers, &c. In fact, the FSF recommends non-free licenses be used for “works of opinion and judgement”: its own website, and most (if not all) of Mr. Stallman's essays and speeches, are published under a license that permits verbatim copying only, forbidding the user to make modifications. In his justification for this stance, Mr. Stallman claims that as the point of such works is to report a belief or event, any modification to such a work must necessarily misrepresent the author, so such an activity cannot possibly benefit the community.
In my opinion, this belief is completely flawed in two ways. If you consider this position as applied to software instead of written works or speeches, it's like saying that any patch to a program must necessarily pervert the original author's aim for the program.
But even if you don't accept that the situations are analogous, you can't ignore the fact that this practice goes on every day without the claimed effect. In fact, I did it just a moment ago: I reported my impression of Mr. Stallman's belief in my own words, with the intent that you can gauge his opinion without having to read the whole article now. In fact, the verbatim-copying-only license forced me to paraphrase in this way instead of creating a derived work of his speech.
When a reporter interviews an eyewitness to some event, he doesn't quote him verbatim, with all the “umms” and “aahs”, and the grammatical errors intact; no, the reporter's job is to put the eyewitness account into a better order, more accurately reflecting what the interviewee intended to say. Certain publications are renowned for misreporting their quoted sources, but to most reporters ‘cleaning up’ an interview transcript is an everyday task with a clear benefit to both readers (who can follow the story without distraction) and interviewees (who can read their quotes without feeling embarrassed at their conversational slips).
The point is that it is possible to make improvements of benefit to the community, even to a highly subjective work. You can fix spelling errors or distracting punctuation. You can translate it into a different language. You can incorporate it into a larger work like a collection of essays on the same subject. None of these need misrepresent the original author.
Even so, the question has to be asked whether allowing derived works to pervert the author's aims is a problem that restrictive licensing should be used to prevent. Again, let's look at the corresponding situation for software.
Suppose that as a programmer I write a program that looks for security vulnerabilities on my network and automatically installs the appropriate patches. I make this program free software, to benefit myself and the community. It's entirely possible for malware authors to use this software for their malicious aims, to the detriment of the community. I'm tempted to say that my software is under a license that permits modification but not to produce malware.
This situation has in fact come up many times, and the FSF has been asked about including anti-malware clauses (also anti–human-rights-abuse clauses, anti–global-warming clauses, and many others) in licenses. But their response has always been that the social cost of including such a clause, and the associated reduction of freedom, would be less than the benefit of including it.
It's understandable that Mr. Stallman might not want people who are opposed to free software—mostly non-free software vendors whose flawed revenue model can't compete in a free market—to create a modified version that inverts his arguments, making it look like he does not support free software. But there is already much existing precedent in free software licenses for provisions that prevent authors of modified versions from misrepresenting their modified version as the original, or from using the name of the original author to promote their modified version: even the GNU FDL has such provisions.
Thus I must confess myself unable to comprehend Mr. Stallman's objection to free speeches (and essays, papers, articles, and so on). He claims that modifying such works necessarily misrepresents the author; on the contrary, this takes place all the time. He claims that modifying such works does not benefit the community; I have given several ways in which it can provide benefit by making the work more accessible or more readable. He implicitly claims that a work's license has the purpose of protecting its author from misrepresentation or from people using his work for purposes he disagrees with; the FSF's official policy casts serious doubt on all but the narrowest interpretation of this belief, and the licenses he rejects out of hand can offer such protection anyway.
It's really quite amazing how much the FSF and the GNU project have done for computing in general. Even if you tend to avoid directly using free software, you can't visit many websites without seeing one that was created with or is served using free software, and you can't read many emails without reading one that was sent via a mail server running free software. The development and community tools and processes used by GNU and others to create, distribute, and support free software have been widely adopted by commercial software vendors too, because of the benefits they offer to developers and users. For me, it's especially sad to see an organisation like the FSF, which has long been a pioneer in the free world, take such a backwards step on freedom with its non-free documentation license and its non-free speech; so, it's with quite some disappointing that I have to recommend that authors of documentation avoid the non-free features of the GNU FDL, and that authors of other verbal works, be they books, essays, papers or speeches, seriously consider releasing those works under free licenses.
" --- author: email: st@istic.org keyid: 828438da885b170d name: Daniel Hulme categories: [] date: 2008-11-11T20:46:43Z guid: 2c2fb279-e2ec-428e-9b84-db1da90cf559 modified: 2008-11-11T20:46:43Z raw: "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nOne night last week I was riding on East Road heading South, and on the bit of\ncycle path immediately after the part where it is usually obstructed by cars\nsticking out of the parking bay. I ran over a smooth, triangular bit of metal,\nlike a road sign. It was stormy weather, and it occurred to me pretty much\nsimultaneously that \xE2\x92\x9C in wet weather it was quite dangerous to have a sign in\nthe cycle path, and \xE2\x92\x9D it seemed likely that it had blown there in high wind.\n\nA second or two after I looked up from the sign I saw that I was rapidly\napproaching an obstruction: the left three or four metres of the carriageway\n(including the cycle lane) had been dug up and were surrounded by barriers. As I\nsignalled and pulled out by a lane and a half to avoid it, I thought that it\nwould have been a much more relaxed manoeuvre if I'd had a bit of advance\nwarning of the obstruction, and reflected that they should really have put a\n\xE2\x80\x9Croad narrows on the left\xE2\x80\x9D sign in front of it.\n\nI'd passed the roadworks before I made the connection.\n\nAs [FlipC said on his blog today][1], \xE2\x80\x9CSigns warning you about non-existent\nhazards can at times be as dangerous as the hazards themselves.\xE2\x80\x9D I would add to\nthis that even signs warning of real hazards can be as dangerous as the hazards\nthemselves. This sign was fine in itself, but as it was insufficiently anchored,\nit became a slick surface in wet weather that could easily throw a less\nconfident cyclist, and a distraction from the hazard it was warning about. I've\noften seen \xE2\x80\x9Croad narrows on the left signs\xE2\x80\x9D placed in cycle lanes: once even by\nthe police, and on this same road.\n\n[1]: http://flipc.blogspot.com/2008/11/vale-road.html\n \"\xE2\x80\x98Vale Road\xE2\x80\x99 on The Mad Ranter\"\n\nDuring the recent roadworks in Downing Street (Cambridge, not London), one\npavement was closed, and a barricade section moved the contraflow cycle lane\nfurther into the main carriageway. Unfortunately, at the end by which cyclists\nenter the section, a sign indicated that they should use this section; at the\nother end, a sign instructed pedestrians to use it as a footpath.\n\nBut all of these hazard-creating signs pale in comparison to the efforts of our\nfriends across the Atlantic: the city of Dana Point, California, was rewarded\nfor one outstanding hazard sign by having it made Warrington Cycle Campaign's\n[Cycle Facility of the Month for October 2008][2].\n\n[2]: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-month/October2008.htm\n \"Oct 2008 Cycle Facility of the Month: stupid road sign in Dana Point, California\"\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)\n\niEYEARECAAYFAkkZ7y4ACgkQgoQ42ohbFw0+DACcDE4xEEtEhhiHYr9KL0TsHPFf\nm3AAn09FyeSVFhaflJ/fo+9/9cnPvXMa\n=V6PC\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n" signed: 1 summary: " One night last week I was riding on East …" tags: [] text: "\nOne night last week I was riding on East Road heading South, and on the\nbit of cycle path immediately after the part where it is usually ob-\nstructed by cars sticking out of the parking bay. I ran over a smooth,\ntriangular bit of metal, like a road sign. It was stormy weather, and it\noccurred to me pretty much simultaneously that ⒜ in wet weather it was\nquite dangerous to have a sign in the cycle path, and ⒝ it seemed likely\nthat it had blown there in high wind.\n\nA second or two after I looked up from the sign I saw that I was rapid-\nly approaching an obstruction: the left three or four metres of the\ncarriageway (including the cycle lane) had been dug up and were sur-\nrounded by barriers. As I signalled and pulled out by a lane and a half\nto avoid it, I thought that it would have been a much more relaxed ma-\nnoeuvre if I'd had a bit of advance warning of the obstruction, and re-\nflected that they should really have put a “road narrows on the left”\nsign in front of it.\n\nI'd passed the roadworks before I made the connection.\n\nAs FlipC said on his blog today [1], “Signs warning you about non-exis-\ntent hazards can at times be as dangerous as the hazards themselves.” I\nwould add to this that even signs warning of real hazards can be as dan-\ngerous as the hazards themselves. This sign was fine in itself, but as\nit was insufficiently anchored, it became a slick surface in wet weather\nthat could easily throw a less confident cyclist, and a distraction from\nthe hazard it was warning about. I've often seen “road narrows on the\nleft signs” placed in cycle lanes: once even by the police, and on this\nsame road.\n\nDuring the recent roadworks in Downing Street (Cambridge, not London),\none pavement was closed, and a barricade section moved the contraflow\ncycle lane further into the main carriageway. Unfortunately, at the end\nby which cyclists enter the section, a sign indicated that they should\nuse this section; at the other end, a sign instructed pedestrians to use\nit as a footpath.\n\nBut all of these hazard-creating signs pale in comparison to the efforts\nof our friends across the Atlantic: the city of Dana Point, California,\nwas rewarded for one outstanding hazard sign by having it made Warring-\nton Cycle Campaign's Cycle Facility of the Month for October 2008 [2].\n\n-- \n [1] http://flipc.blogspot.com/2008/11/vale-road.html\n [2] http://homepage.ntlworld.com/pete.meg/wcc/facility-of-the-\n month/October2008.htm\n" title: Give me a sign type: markdown uri: http://ego.istic.org/articles/Give%20me%20a%20sign.markdown xhtml: "One night last week I was riding on East Road heading South, and on the bit of cycle path immediately after the part where it is usually obstructed by cars sticking out of the parking bay. I ran over a smooth, triangular bit of metal, like a road sign. It was stormy weather, and it occurred to me pretty much simultaneously that ⒜ in wet weather it was quite dangerous to have a sign in the cycle path, and ⒝ it seemed likely that it had blown there in high wind.
A second or two after I looked up from the sign I saw that I was rapidly approaching an obstruction: the left three or four metres of the carriageway (including the cycle lane) had been dug up and were surrounded by barriers. As I signalled and pulled out by a lane and a half to avoid it, I thought that it would have been a much more relaxed manoeuvre if I'd had a bit of advance warning of the obstruction, and reflected that they should really have put a “road narrows on the left” sign in front of it.
I'd passed the roadworks before I made the connection.
As FlipC said on his blog today, “Signs warning you about non-existent hazards can at times be as dangerous as the hazards themselves.” I would add to this that even signs warning of real hazards can be as dangerous as the hazards themselves. This sign was fine in itself, but as it was insufficiently anchored, it became a slick surface in wet weather that could easily throw a less confident cyclist, and a distraction from the hazard it was warning about. I've often seen “road narrows on the left signs” placed in cycle lanes: once even by the police, and on this same road.
During the recent roadworks in Downing Street (Cambridge, not London), one pavement was closed, and a barricade section moved the contraflow cycle lane further into the main carriageway. Unfortunately, at the end by which cyclists enter the section, a sign indicated that they should use this section; at the other end, a sign instructed pedestrians to use it as a footpath.
But all of these hazard-creating signs pale in comparison to the efforts of our friends across the Atlantic: the city of Dana Point, California, was rewarded for one outstanding hazard sign by having it made Warrington Cycle Campaign's Cycle Facility of the Month for October 2008.
" --- author: email: st@istic.org keyid: 828438da885b170d name: Daniel Hulme categories: [] date: 2008-11-09T20:37:54Z guid: b703f7a3-bad2-4847-aab7-a8f38d84dfcf modified: 2008-11-09T20:37:54Z raw: "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nI have [written previously][1] about Sir Elton John's recent attempts at country\nmusic. Since then I have been listening to his much older work in the same\nspirit. His second album, Tumbleweed Connection, is heavily\ncountry-influenced, but as it didn't produce any hit singles it has been\nneglected since, though it was certified gold and probably would have been\nplatinum if platinum certification had existed in 1970. None of the tracks has\neven been on any of the many \xE2\x80\x9Cgreatest hits\xE2\x80\x9D albums, though two or three have\nbeen successful covers for other singers and groups (the one I'd heard before\nwas \xE2\x80\x98Burn Down the Mission\xE2\x80\x99, covered by Toto in their 2002 cover album\nThrough the Looking Glass).\n\n[1]: http://ego.istic.org/articles/The%20Bridge.markdown\n \"review of \xE2\x80\x98The Bridge\xE2\x80\x99 on e.i.o\"\n\nThe album includes one genuine celebration of small-town-living, \xE2\x80\x98Country\nComfort\xE2\x80\x99, but, especially in the light of his later work like \xE2\x80\x98American\nTriangle\xE2\x80\x99, which expresses disgust at Southern America's intolerance, I always\nhave trouble deciding whether (or to what extent) Bernie Taupin's lyrics are\ntongue-in-cheek. Here's one stanza of \xE2\x80\x98Country Comfort\xE2\x80\x99:\n\n> Down at the well, they've got a new machine, \n> Foreman says it cuts man-power by fifteen, \n> But that ain't natural, well so old Clay would say, \n> You see he's a horse-drawn man until his dying day.\n\nSo, is this a sneer towards new-fangled technology, or is it a jibe at the\nbackward-looking Luddites stuck in their inefficient ways? Perhaps it is both at\nonce.\n\nMost of the album is in a rock-imbued country style, a mile away from the\nmainstream pop image of the other music he was making around that time, though\nthere are a few exceptions. There are two in a slightly more psychedelic style,\nthough perhaps that word is a little too strong: \xE2\x80\x98Come Down in Time\xE2\x80\x99 and \xE2\x80\x98Where\nto now St. Peter?\xE2\x80\x99 are much less grounded in a beat than the rest of the album,\nwith lots of strings and less straightforward lyrics. But throughout, there is\na lot of Sir John's characteristic piano playing, with the recognisable chord\nprogressions and off-beat rhythms that he still uses today.\n\nThere are two particularly noteworthy tracks. \xE2\x80\x98My Father's Gun\xE2\x80\x99 is set in the\nAmerican Civil War, from the point of view of a family man off to fight for the\nSouth. The very first line is, \xE2\x80\x9CFrom this day on, I own my father's gun,\xE2\x80\x9D\nimmediately making clear that the fight has already claimed one victim from this\nfamily; the rest of the song's plot is revealed in a similarly laconic way. The\nsong opens with a lonely piano and guitar, evoking the openness of the \xE2\x80\x9CNorthern\nplain\xE2\x80\x9D the narrator rides around with his horse and his gun. But for the refrain\nthey are joined by backing singers, a brass bass line, and a strong drum part;\nas the narrator joins with his fellow fighters to meet the Yankees. A following\nverse returns to the guitar and piano accompaniment as the narrator looks\nforward to what life will be like once the war is won. The refrain is repeated\nseveral times, each time with the accompaniment getting more chaotic, the brass\nchords louder, the drum fills longer and more elaborate. From its soulful\nopening it becomes the kind of song you can't help beating along to on your\ndesk. (Perhaps I'm not the best judge, as almost all songs are like that for\nme.) It's under-produced by modern standards, without synths or added echo\neffects, but that fits nicely with the overall character of the album.\n\nThe other candidate for best track on the album is \xE2\x80\x98Talking Old Soldiers\xE2\x80\x99, which\ngoes the opposite way. It's just Sir John singing and playing piano chords,\nand even \xE2\x80\x9Csinging\xE2\x80\x9D overstates the point: it's more like a monologue set to\nmusic. The song is sung from the point of view of an old soldier in a bar,\nlooking to the past sorrowfully and railing against his situation to a friendly\npasser-by. The only way I can think of to describe the forcefulness of the song\nis to compare it to a standard like \xE2\x80\x98My Way\xE2\x80\x99, but with thumping (yet always\nprecise) piano chords in place of the cheesy orchestration. At its peak, there\nis a cadenza for a whole line sung on the same note without accompaniment, a\ntechnical challenge for any singer.\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)\n\niEYEARECAAYFAkkXSh0ACgkQgoQ42ohbFw3AlQCfWF0J0XZcOa/Myrblvop0vBt5\nlFkAnRMXpOqBAqZRfj6/mmF3QvPS2LpJ\n=LMcG\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n" signed: 1 summary: " I have written previously [1] about Sir Elton John's …" tags: - john: 0 - music: 0 - taupin: 0 text: "\nI have written previously [1] about Sir Elton John's recent attempts at\ncountry music. Since then I have been listening to his much older work\nin the same spirit. His second album, Tumbleweed Connection, is heavily\ncountry-influenced, but as it didn't produce any hit singles it has been\nneglected since, though it was certified gold and probably would have\nbeen platinum if platinum certification had existed in 1970. None of the\ntracks has even been on any of the many “greatest hits” albums, though\ntwo or three have been successful covers for other singers and groups\n(the one I'd heard before was ‘Burn Down the Mission’, covered by Toto\nin their 2002 cover album Through the Looking Glass).\n\nThe album includes one genuine celebration of small-town-living, ‘Coun-\ntry Comfort’, but, especially in the light of his later work like\n‘American Triangle’, which expresses disgust at Southern America's in-\ntolerance, I always have trouble deciding whether (or to what extent)\nBernie Taupin's lyrics are tongue-in-cheek. Here's one stanza of ‘Coun-\ntry Comfort’:\n\nDown at the well, they've got a new machine, Foreman says it cuts\nman-power by fifteen, But that ain't natural, well so old Clay would\nsay, You see he's a horse-drawn man until his dying day.\n\nSo, is this a sneer towards new-fangled technology, or is it a jibe at\nthe backward-looking Luddites stuck in their inefficient ways? Perhaps\nit is both at once.\n\nMost of the album is in a rock-imbued country style, a mile away from\nthe mainstream pop image of the other music he was making around that\ntime, though there are a few exceptions. There are two in a slightly\nmore psychedelic style, though perhaps that word is a little too strong:\n‘Come Down in Time’ and ‘Where to now St. Peter?’ are much less grounded\nin a beat than the rest of the album, with lots of strings and less s-\ntraightforward lyrics. But throughout, there is a lot of Sir John's\ncharacteristic piano playing, with the recognisable chord progressions\nand off-beat rhythms that he still uses today.\n\nThere are two particularly noteworthy tracks. ‘My Father's Gun’ is set\nin the American Civil War, from the point of view of a family man off to\nfight for the South. The very first line is, “From this day on, I own my\nfather's gun,” immediately making clear that the fight has already\nclaimed one victim from this family; the rest of the song's plot is re-\nvealed in a similarly laconic way. The song opens with a lonely piano\nand guitar, evoking the openness of the “Northern plain” the narrator\nrides around with his horse and his gun. But for the refrain they are\njoined by backing singers, a brass bass line, and a strong drum part; as\nthe narrator joins with his fellow fighters to meet the Yankees. A fol-\nlowing verse returns to the guitar and piano accompaniment as the narra-\ntor looks forward to what life will be like once the war is won. The re-\nfrain is repeated several times, each time with the accompaniment get-\nting more chaotic, the brass chords louder, the drum fills longer and\nmore elaborate. From its soulful opening it becomes the kind of song you\ncan't help beating along to on your desk. (Perhaps I'm not the best\njudge, as almost all songs are like that for me.) It's under-produced by\nmodern standards, without synths or added echo effects, but that fits\nnicely with the overall character of the album.\n\nThe other candidate for best track on the album is ‘Talking Old Soldier-\ns’, which goes the opposite way. It's just Sir John singing and playing\npiano chords, and even “singing” overstates the point: it's more like a\nmonologue set to music. The song is sung from the point of view of an\nold soldier in a bar, looking to the past sorrowfully and railing a-\ngainst his situation to a friendly passer-by. The only way I can think\nof to describe the forcefulness of the song is to compare it to a stan-\ndard like ‘My Way’, but with thumping (yet always precise) piano chords\nin place of the cheesy orchestration. At its peak, there is a cadenza\nfor a whole line sung on the same note without accompaniment, a techni-\ncal challenge for any singer.\n\n-- \n [1] http://ego.istic.org/articles/The%20Bridge.markdown\n" title: Tumbleweed Connection type: markdown uri: http://ego.istic.org/articles/Tumbleweed%20Connection.markdown xhtml: "I have written previously about Sir Elton John's recent attempts at country music. Since then I have been listening to his much older work in the same spirit. His second album, Tumbleweed Connection, is heavily country-influenced, but as it didn't produce any hit singles it has been neglected since, though it was certified gold and probably would have been platinum if platinum certification had existed in 1970. None of the tracks has even been on any of the many “greatest hits” albums, though two or three have been successful covers for other singers and groups (the one I'd heard before was ‘Burn Down the Mission’, covered by Toto in their 2002 cover album Through the Looking Glass).
The album includes one genuine celebration of small-town-living, ‘Country Comfort’, but, especially in the light of his later work like ‘American Triangle’, which expresses disgust at Southern America's intolerance, I always have trouble deciding whether (or to what extent) Bernie Taupin's lyrics are tongue-in-cheek. Here's one stanza of ‘Country Comfort’:
Down at the well, they've got a new machine,
Foreman says it cuts man-power by fifteen,
But that ain't natural, well so old Clay would say,
You see he's a horse-drawn man until his dying day.
So, is this a sneer towards new-fangled technology, or is it a jibe at the backward-looking Luddites stuck in their inefficient ways? Perhaps it is both at once.
Most of the album is in a rock-imbued country style, a mile away from the mainstream pop image of the other music he was making around that time, though there are a few exceptions. There are two in a slightly more psychedelic style, though perhaps that word is a little too strong: ‘Come Down in Time’ and ‘Where to now St. Peter?’ are much less grounded in a beat than the rest of the album, with lots of strings and less straightforward lyrics. But throughout, there is a lot of Sir John's characteristic piano playing, with the recognisable chord progressions and off-beat rhythms that he still uses today.
There are two particularly noteworthy tracks. ‘My Father's Gun’ is set in the American Civil War, from the point of view of a family man off to fight for the South. The very first line is, “From this day on, I own my father's gun,” immediately making clear that the fight has already claimed one victim from this family; the rest of the song's plot is revealed in a similarly laconic way. The song opens with a lonely piano and guitar, evoking the openness of the “Northern plain” the narrator rides around with his horse and his gun. But for the refrain they are joined by backing singers, a brass bass line, and a strong drum part; as the narrator joins with his fellow fighters to meet the Yankees. A following verse returns to the guitar and piano accompaniment as the narrator looks forward to what life will be like once the war is won. The refrain is repeated several times, each time with the accompaniment getting more chaotic, the brass chords louder, the drum fills longer and more elaborate. From its soulful opening it becomes the kind of song you can't help beating along to on your desk. (Perhaps I'm not the best judge, as almost all songs are like that for me.) It's under-produced by modern standards, without synths or added echo effects, but that fits nicely with the overall character of the album.
The other candidate for best track on the album is ‘Talking Old Soldiers’, which goes the opposite way. It's just Sir John singing and playing piano chords, and even “singing” overstates the point: it's more like a monologue set to music. The song is sung from the point of view of an old soldier in a bar, looking to the past sorrowfully and railing against his situation to a friendly passer-by. The only way I can think of to describe the forcefulness of the song is to compare it to a standard like ‘My Way’, but with thumping (yet always precise) piano chords in place of the cheesy orchestration. At its peak, there is a cadenza for a whole line sung on the same note without accompaniment, a technical challenge for any singer.
" --- author: email: st@istic.org keyid: 828438da885b170d name: Daniel Hulme categories: [] date: 2008-11-01T10:49:12Z guid: acd558ea-cb51-440f-a5e6-bd939e1f6657 modified: 2008-11-01T10:49:12Z raw: "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nThose of you in Cambridge, and many from other cities, will be familiar with the\nlittle numbers they put on lamp posts, along with a phone number to ring to\nreport that that lamp is out of action. The numbers on these things are\nsequential along each road, and usually three figures, so it suggests that\nsomewhere in Cambridge there must be a lamp post number one.\n\nIn fact, there is, and this week I noticed it was in fact on Free School Lane,\nabout three down from the door of the Whipple Museum. Perhaps disappointingly,\nit's not a full lamp post, but a lamp attached to the side of the building. It\nlooks like it has been there for quite some years.\n\nThis week I also learned that there is in fact a post box on the way from the\nJane Coston bridge over the A14 to the White Horse. But I imagine this fact will\nnot really be of as much interest to people who *haven't* forgotten to post a\nletter on the way to work on Cowley Road but are going to the pub at lunchtime.\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)\n\niEYEARECAAYFAkkMNCMACgkQgoQ42ohbFw0DFgCcCgwPtkxUed9H+Ek3Mt/cKXQl\nR2EAoJVGRo8gePEnu72l3Sbos8qoGHKE\n=jzF+\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n" signed: 1 summary: " Those of you in Cambridge, and many from other …" tags: [] text: "\nThose of you in Cambridge, and many from other cities, will be familiar with the little numbers they put on lamp posts, along with a phone number to ring to report that that lamp is out of action. The numbers on these things are sequential along each road, and usually three figures, so it suggests that somewhere in Cambridge there must be a lamp post number one.\n\nIn fact, there is, and this week I noticed it was in fact on Free School Lane, about three down from the door of the Whipple Museum. Perhaps disappointingly, it's not a full lamp post, but a lamp attached to the side of the building. It looks like it has been there for quite some years.\n\nThis week I also learned that there is in fact a post box on the way from the Jane Coston bridge over the A14 to the White Horse. But I imagine this fact will not really be of as much interest to people who haven't forgotten to post a letter on the way to work on Cowley Road but are going to the pub at lunchtime.\n" title: Who is Number One type: markdown uri: http://ego.istic.org/articles/Who%20is%20Number%20One.markdown xhtml:Those of you in Cambridge, and many from other cities, will be familiar with the little numbers they put on lamp posts, along with a phone number to ring to report that that lamp is out of action. The numbers on these things are sequential along each road, and usually three figures, so it suggests that somewhere in Cambridge there must be a lamp post number one.
In fact, there is, and this week I noticed it was in fact on Free School Lane, about three down from the door of the Whipple Museum. Perhaps disappointingly, it's not a full lamp post, but a lamp attached to the side of the building. It looks like it has been there for quite some years.
This week I also learned that there is in fact a post box on the way from the Jane Coston bridge over the A14 to the White Horse. But I imagine this fact will not really be of as much interest to people who haven't forgotten to post a letter on the way to work on Cowley Road but are going to the pub at lunchtime.
--- author: email: st@istic.org keyid: 828438da885b170d name: Daniel Hulme categories: [] date: 2008-10-29T08:18:01Z guid: b9ef376b-f6d3-4d04-9fa5-ca9329839f97 modified: 2008-10-29T08:18:01Z raw: "-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----\nHash: SHA1\n\nOn my way to band rehearsal Monday night I had two near misses that made me think\na little about road behaviour.\n\nThe first was as I turned right onto a main road from a side road. Because it's\nfar too easy to miss a gap while craning one's neck in all directions, when I\nexpect it to be quiet I do what the Americans call a \xE2\x80\x9Crolling stop\xE2\x80\x9D a metre\nbefore the give way line, to give me enough time for a quick glance either way\nbefore deciding whether to make a break for it or stop properly. This time, a\nquick glance proved insufficient.\n\nWhen I was halfway across the road, I noticed that I was about three metres away\nfrom running into a cyclist travelling along the road in the direction and lane\nI wanted to head in. He must have been training, for he was on a proper road\nbike, with pedals with cleats, and clad neck-to-ankle in black lycra. Now, I\npride myself on having a ridiculously overpowered headlight. It's bright enough\nto noticeably illuminate retro-reflective road signs from about 200m away. I\nhave it angled to cast a bright white spot on the road about 6m in front of me,\nvisible even under street lighting\xE2\x80\x94not just so I can scan for potholes, but also\nto make me visible round corners. I can usually see even unlit cyclists from a\nway off, because their front or rear reflectors, and their yellow pedal\nreflectors, and maybe their cycle clips or other retro-reflective patches on\nclothing, reflect my headlamp effectively. But this chap lacked pedal\nreflectors, because he had pedals with cleats; as he was side-on to me I\ncouldn't see either of his lights nor his front or rear reflectors; as he was\ndressed in black I had no chance of picking out the shape of a cyclist without a\nlong examination.\n\nOf course, even if I hadn't been able to stop there would have been little\nchance of serious injury. Collisions between cyclists rarely end with more than\na few bruises, maybe a bump on the noggin, and very occasionally a broken arm.\nBut I could have been a two or three tonne lump of steel. Again, this is a\nrelatively low-speed collision\xE2\x80\x94because I was just pulling out from a side\nroad\xE2\x80\x94but even at low speeds there is a good chance with cars, especially given\nthe direction I was turning, of catching your head or ribs on the solid parts at\nthe side of the bonnet, or on the nearside pillar, both of which often result in\nserious injury.\n\nThis should be a two-fold reminder: first, to people operating dangerous\nmachinery like motor cars, that cyclists are not that visible from the side, so\nyou should take extra care at night and not assume that other road users are lit\nup like Christmas trees; second, to cyclists, to remember how easy it is for\nother road users not to see you, especially at night, so you should make it as\nhard as possible for them to make this driving mistake, and to be prepared in\ncase it does happen. I too am duly warned to take more care when attempting this\nmanoeuvre.\n\nOn the other hand, I am fairly sure that if the situations had been\nreversed, I would have been very visible. Apart from my aforementioned headlamp,\nI have more retro-reflective stickers on my bike, particularly on the sides of\nthe frame, than the back of a Sainsbury's van. Even the feeblest lights turn me\ninto a glowing white, yellow, and red blur looking like Tron on disco night.\n\nOnto the second near miss. Again, a right turn, but this time onto a side-road,\nfrom Mill Road. Local readers will know that Mill Road is far too narrow for the\ntraffic it carries: it's two narrow to fit, say, two Hummers side-by-side. [Rule\n74 of the Highway Code][1] says the following about turning right:\n\n> On the right. If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it is\n> safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until there is a\n> safe gap in the oncoming traffic and give a final look before completing the\n> turn. It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to\n> dismount and push your cycle across the road.\n\n[1]: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_069837\n \"Highway Code 59\xE2\x80\x9382: Rules for cyclists\"\n\nI'm afraid I have to recommend disregarding that last sentence. It's never safer\nto wait to turn right on the left of the carriageway, because doing so means you\nhave to cross all the lanes in one go rather than one at a time. For similar\nreasons, pretty much the only time it's safer to dismount and cross on foot is\nat a light-controlled junction with pedestrian crossings, and only then on\nmulti-lane junctions. (In particular, if you do this, dismount well before the\njunction, to ensure that your signal to pull in is not misinterpreted as turning\nleft, which could cause someone a nasty surprise when you stop.) Remember that\npedestrians have more accidents per unit distance travelled than cyclists, and\ntheir accidents are usually worse (because being higher up on a bike makes you\nmore likely to go onto the bonnet and less likely to get squished underneath or\nwhacked with bull-bars), so it's almost always safer to stay on your bike.\n\nAnyway, back to the story. I checked traffic: behind me there was a Land Rover\ntowing a trailer. Because of his width and the presence of oncoming traffic, the\ndriver was making no attempt to overtake me, so I signalled clearly and moved to\na position about half a metre to the left of the white line. I remember at this\npoint feeling sorry for the driver of the Land Rover because he was going to\nhave to wait for the oncoming traffic, because there wasn't enough room for him\nto pass on the inside. I came to a gradual halt to wait for the oncoming traffic\n(which was about three cars). As I stopped, I (of course) put my left foot down,\nwhich caused my body to move maybe 15cm to the left. As I was doing this, I felt\na presence. No, I wasn't having a religious experience; on looking to my left I\nsaw the Land Rover driver come to a sudden stop with his offside wing mirror\nmere inches behind my left shoulder. He had obviously thought he could just\nabout squash through to my left, ignorant of the basic fact that cyclists move\nto the left slightly when they stop.\n\nLike the earlier incident, this would have been a low-speed collision, probably\nresulting in just a bump on the shoulder and maybe a damaged wing mirror. But\nthe roads were getting icy, so it's plausible that even a slight impact could\nunbalance me enough to send me into the path of the oncoming traffic.\n\nNow, I tell you these two stories not to try to make you believe that cycling is\ndangerous, or to hint that this happens very often. It's rare enough that I have\none near miss like this, let alone two on one journey, and even then, in both\ncases the risk of injury was small. But as the wise man learns from his\nmistakes, so I hope that you will be wiser yet and learn from my mistakes in\naddition to your own. I know that in future I will be changing my behaviour. I\nmight go back to stopping completely at the junction where the first event\nhappened, as I did when I first moved to this area, and just think patience when\nthis causes me to miss a gap. And, just as I move out to the right on narrow\nroads to discourage wide vehicles like cars from attempting to overtake me, so\nwhen turning right will I stay well to the left of the white line.\n\nIf this story does have a moral, it's that even experienced road users still have\nmore to learn about their behaviour and how it affects the behaviour of those\naround them.\n-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----\nVersion: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)\n\niEYEARECAAYFAkkIHDUACgkQgoQ42ohbFw0sQACeNN0kN+l+GglGPFZWAzdUMhvt\nm60AnRNanKh7b/tz9zsFDS7m4M/UvbJu\n=l7/T\n-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----\n" signed: 1 summary: " On my way to band rehearsal Monday night I …" tags: - markdown: 0 - cycling: 0 text: "\nOn my way to band rehearsal Monday night I had two near misses that made\nme think a little about road behaviour.\n\nThe first was as I turned right onto a main road from a side road. Be-\ncause it's far too easy to miss a gap while craning one's neck in all\ndirections, when I expect it to be quiet I do what the Americans call a\n“rolling stop” a metre before the give way line, to give me enough time\nfor a quick glance either way before deciding whether to make a break\nfor it or stop properly. This time, a quick glance proved insufficient.\n\nWhen I was halfway across the road, I noticed that I was about three me-\ntres away from running into a cyclist travelling along the road in the\ndirection and lane I wanted to head in. He must have been training, for\nhe was on a proper road bike, with pedals with cleats, and clad neck--\nto-ankle in black lycra. Now, I pride myself on having a ridiculously\noverpowered headlight. It's bright enough to noticeably illuminate\nretro-reflective road signs from about 200m away. I have it angled to\ncast a bright white spot on the road about 6m in front of me, visible\neven under street lighting—not just so I can scan for potholes, but also\nto make me visible round corners. I can usually see even unlit cyclists\nfrom a way off, because their front or rear reflectors, and their yellow\npedal reflectors, and maybe their cycle clips or other retro-reflective\npatches on clothing, reflect my headlamp effectively. But this chap\nlacked pedal reflectors, because he had pedals with cleats; as he was\nside-on to me I couldn't see either of his lights nor his front or rear\nreflectors; as he was dressed in black I had no chance of picking out\nthe shape of a cyclist without a long examination.\n\nOf course, even if I hadn't been able to stop there would have been lit-\ntle chance of serious injury. Collisions between cyclists rarely end\nwith more than a few bruises, maybe a bump on the noggin, and very occa-\nsionally a broken arm. But I could have been a two or three tonne lump\nof steel. Again, this is a relatively low-speed collision—because I was\njust pulling out from a side road—but even at low speeds there is a good\nchance with cars, especially given the direction I was turning, of\ncatching your head or ribs on the solid parts at the side of the bonnet,\nor on the nearside pillar, both of which often result in serious injury.\n\nThis should be a two-fold reminder: first, to people operating dangerous\nmachinery like motor cars, that cyclists are not that visible from the\nside, so you should take extra care at night and not assume that other\nroad users are lit up like Christmas trees; second, to cyclists, to re-\nmember how easy it is for other road users not to see you, especially at\nnight, so you should make it as hard as possible for them to make this\ndriving mistake, and to be prepared in case it does happen. I too am du-\nly warned to take more care when attempting this manoeuvre.\n\nOn the other hand, I am fairly sure that if the situations had been re-\nversed, I would have been very visible. Apart from my aforementioned\nheadlamp, I have more retro-reflective stickers on my bike, particularly\non the sides of the frame, than the back of a Sainsbury's van. Even the\nfeeblest lights turn me into a glowing white, yellow, and red blur look-\ning like Tron on disco night.\n\nOnto the second near miss. Again, a right turn, but this time onto a\nside-road, from Mill Road. Local readers will know that Mill Road is far\ntoo narrow for the traffic it carries: it's two narrow to fit, say, two\nHummers side-by-side. Rule 74 of the Highway Code [1] says the following\nabout turning right:\n\nOn the right. If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it\nis safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until\nthere is a safe gap in the oncoming traffic and give a final look before\ncompleting the turn. It may be safer to wait on the left until there is\na safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road.\n\nI'm afraid I have to recommend disregarding that last sentence. It's n-\never safer to wait to turn right on the left of the carriageway, because\ndoing so means you have to cross all the lanes in one go rather than one\nat a time. For similar reasons, pretty much the only time it's safer to\ndismount and cross on foot is at a light-controlled junction with pedes-\ntrian crossings, and only then on multi-lane junctions. (In particular,\nif you do this, dismount well before the junction, to ensure that your\nsignal to pull in is not misinterpreted as turning left, which could\ncause someone a nasty surprise when you stop.) Remember that pedestrians\nhave more accidents per unit distance travelled than cyclists, and their\naccidents are usually worse (because being higher up on a bike makes you\nmore likely to go onto the bonnet and less likely to get squished un-\nderneath or whacked with bull-bars), so it's almost always safer to stay\non your bike.\n\nAnyway, back to the story. I checked traffic: behind me there was a\nLand Rover towing a trailer. Because of his width and the presence of\noncoming traffic, the driver was making no attempt to overtake me, so I\nsignalled clearly and moved to a position about half a metre to the\nleft of the white line. I remember at this point feeling sorry for the\ndriver of the Land Rover because he was going to have to wait for the\noncoming traffic, because there wasn't enough room for him to pass on\nthe inside. I came to a gradual halt to wait for the oncoming traffic\n(which was about three cars). As I stopped, I (of course) put my left\nfoot down, which caused my body to move maybe 15cm to the left. As I\nwas doing this, I felt a presence. No, I wasn't having a religious ex-\nperience; on looking to my left I saw the Land Rover driver come to a\nsudden stop with his offside wing mirror mere inches behind my left\nshoulder. He had obviously thought he could just about squash through\nto my left, ignorant of the basic fact that cyclists move to the left\nslightly when they stop.\n\nLike the earlier incident, this would have been a low-speed collision,\nprobably resulting in just a bump on the shoulder and maybe a damaged\nwing mirror. But the roads were getting icy, so it's plausible that even\na slight impact could unbalance me enough to send me into the path of\nthe oncoming traffic.\n\nNow, I tell you these two stories not to try to make you believe that\ncycling is dangerous, or to hint that this happens very often. It's rare\nenough that I have one near miss like this, let alone two on one jour-\nney, and even then, in both cases the risk of injury was small. But as\nthe wise man learns from his mistakes, so I hope that you will be wiser\nyet and learn from my mistakes in addition to your own. I know that in\nfuture I will be changing my behaviour. I might go back to stopping com-\npletely at the junction where the first event happened, as I did when I\nfirst moved to this area, and just think patience when this causes me to\nmiss a gap. And, just as I move out to the right on narrow roads to dis-\ncourage wide vehicles like cars from attempting to overtake me, so when\nturning right will I stay well to the left of the white line.\n\nIf this story does have a moral, it's that even experienced road users\nstill have more to learn about their behaviour and how it affects the\nbehaviour of those around them.\n\n-- \n [1] http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_0698-\n 37\n" title: Near misses type: markdown uri: http://ego.istic.org/articles/Near%20misses.markdown xhtml: "On my way to band rehearsal Monday night I had two near misses that made me think a little about road behaviour.
The first was as I turned right onto a main road from a side road. Because it's far too easy to miss a gap while craning one's neck in all directions, when I expect it to be quiet I do what the Americans call a “rolling stop” a metre before the give way line, to give me enough time for a quick glance either way before deciding whether to make a break for it or stop properly. This time, a quick glance proved insufficient.
When I was halfway across the road, I noticed that I was about three metres away from running into a cyclist travelling along the road in the direction and lane I wanted to head in. He must have been training, for he was on a proper road bike, with pedals with cleats, and clad neck-to-ankle in black lycra. Now, I pride myself on having a ridiculously overpowered headlight. It's bright enough to noticeably illuminate retro-reflective road signs from about 200m away. I have it angled to cast a bright white spot on the road about 6m in front of me, visible even under street lighting—not just so I can scan for potholes, but also to make me visible round corners. I can usually see even unlit cyclists from a way off, because their front or rear reflectors, and their yellow pedal reflectors, and maybe their cycle clips or other retro-reflective patches on clothing, reflect my headlamp effectively. But this chap lacked pedal reflectors, because he had pedals with cleats; as he was side-on to me I couldn't see either of his lights nor his front or rear reflectors; as he was dressed in black I had no chance of picking out the shape of a cyclist without a long examination.
Of course, even if I hadn't been able to stop there would have been little chance of serious injury. Collisions between cyclists rarely end with more than a few bruises, maybe a bump on the noggin, and very occasionally a broken arm. But I could have been a two or three tonne lump of steel. Again, this is a relatively low-speed collision—because I was just pulling out from a side road—but even at low speeds there is a good chance with cars, especially given the direction I was turning, of catching your head or ribs on the solid parts at the side of the bonnet, or on the nearside pillar, both of which often result in serious injury.
This should be a two-fold reminder: first, to people operating dangerous machinery like motor cars, that cyclists are not that visible from the side, so you should take extra care at night and not assume that other road users are lit up like Christmas trees; second, to cyclists, to remember how easy it is for other road users not to see you, especially at night, so you should make it as hard as possible for them to make this driving mistake, and to be prepared in case it does happen. I too am duly warned to take more care when attempting this manoeuvre.
On the other hand, I am fairly sure that if the situations had been reversed, I would have been very visible. Apart from my aforementioned headlamp, I have more retro-reflective stickers on my bike, particularly on the sides of the frame, than the back of a Sainsbury's van. Even the feeblest lights turn me into a glowing white, yellow, and red blur looking like Tron on disco night.
Onto the second near miss. Again, a right turn, but this time onto a side-road, from Mill Road. Local readers will know that Mill Road is far too narrow for the traffic it carries: it's two narrow to fit, say, two Hummers side-by-side. Rule 74 of the Highway Code says the following about turning right:
On the right. If you are turning right, check the traffic to ensure it is safe, then signal and move to the centre of the road. Wait until there is a safe gap in the oncoming traffic and give a final look before completing the turn. It may be safer to wait on the left until there is a safe gap or to dismount and push your cycle across the road.
I'm afraid I have to recommend disregarding that last sentence. It's never safer to wait to turn right on the left of the carriageway, because doing so means you have to cross all the lanes in one go rather than one at a time. For similar reasons, pretty much the only time it's safer to dismount and cross on foot is at a light-controlled junction with pedestrian crossings, and only then on multi-lane junctions. (In particular, if you do this, dismount well before the junction, to ensure that your signal to pull in is not misinterpreted as turning left, which could cause someone a nasty surprise when you stop.) Remember that pedestrians have more accidents per unit distance travelled than cyclists, and their accidents are usually worse (because being higher up on a bike makes you more likely to go onto the bonnet and less likely to get squished underneath or whacked with bull-bars), so it's almost always safer to stay on your bike.
Anyway, back to the story. I checked traffic: behind me there was a Land Rover towing a trailer. Because of his width and the presence of oncoming traffic, the driver was making no attempt to overtake me, so I signalled clearly and moved to a position about half a metre to the left of the white line. I remember at this point feeling sorry for the driver of the Land Rover because he was going to have to wait for the oncoming traffic, because there wasn't enough room for him to pass on the inside. I came to a gradual halt to wait for the oncoming traffic (which was about three cars). As I stopped, I (of course) put my left foot down, which caused my body to move maybe 15cm to the left. As I was doing this, I felt a presence. No, I wasn't having a religious experience; on looking to my left I saw the Land Rover driver come to a sudden stop with his offside wing mirror mere inches behind my left shoulder. He had obviously thought he could just about squash through to my left, ignorant of the basic fact that cyclists move to the left slightly when they stop.
Like the earlier incident, this would have been a low-speed collision, probably resulting in just a bump on the shoulder and maybe a damaged wing mirror. But the roads were getting icy, so it's plausible that even a slight impact could unbalance me enough to send me into the path of the oncoming traffic.
Now, I tell you these two stories not to try to make you believe that cycling is dangerous, or to hint that this happens very often. It's rare enough that I have one near miss like this, let alone two on one journey, and even then, in both cases the risk of injury was small. But as the wise man learns from his mistakes, so I hope that you will be wiser yet and learn from my mistakes in addition to your own. I know that in future I will be changing my behaviour. I might go back to stopping completely at the junction where the first event happened, as I did when I first moved to this area, and just think patience when this causes me to miss a gap. And, just as I move out to the right on narrow roads to discourage wide vehicles like cars from attempting to overtake me, so when turning right will I stay well to the left of the white line.
If this story does have a moral, it's that even experienced road users still have more to learn about their behaviour and how it affects the behaviour of those around them.
"