Oh, to be a fly on the wall at McLaren…

Extraordinary goings-on at the qualifying for Sunday’s Hungarian Grand Prix this morning. Hamilton had been comfortably fastest in the first two sessions, but in the third… Well, here’s how the BBC reported it:

The 22-year-old British rookie was fastest until the Spaniard pipped him by 0.107 seconds with his final lap of the session in the dying seconds. Hamilton was unable to reply after being forced to wait behind Alonso at their final stop, leaving him too little time for a final flying lap. Afterwards, Hamilton refused to be drawn in to criticising Alonso for delaying his exit out of the pit lane ahead of his final run.
“There’s not really much to say – you saw what happened,” he said. “The team did a great job and we had very good pace, but I’m not aware of what happened. You should ask the team.”
When asked as to how long he missed out on setting a final quick lap, he tersely replied: “About the same amount of time I was held up in the pit stop.”
Explaining his hold, Alonso said: “The team held me back in this. We tried to have some space with the Ferrari (Raikkonen) in front of us.”
But team boss Ron Dennis said: “It is a matter to be discussed within the team, and we will do so later.”

There only seem to be two alternatives: incompetence by the team, or deliberate balking by Alonso. And when you compare what happened with the meticulous procedure that the team followed in earlier pit stops, it’s pretty clear that Alonso held up his team mate deliberately. It sounds as if Ron Dennis agrees. I guess this means that Alonso doesn’t believe he can beat Hamilton with sheer skill.
At most circuits, Hamilton would have a chance to out-drag Alonso to the first corner, but at this track the “dirty” line is much slower than the “clean” line. Perhaps if there’s a cloudburst after the GP2 event, to wash away all the “marbles”…
UPDATE: Gossip on the boards suggests that Alonso’s personal trainer (or “his personal physio Fabrizio Borra”) was shouting instructions to Fernando over the team radio during that controversial pitstop. Many fans are pointing out that when Schumacher baulked the entire field at Monaco last year, he was sent to the back of the grid. Meanwhile Planet-F1 is reporting that the stewards are investigating the incident. Throughout it all, Hamilton is displaying remarkable grace under pressure. [UPDATE 3: Well, maybe not quite as much grace as I thought.]
UPDATE 2: This in from the Beeb:

Alonso and Hamilton, as well as team principal Ron Dennis, were summoned to an FIA inquiry to explain why the Spaniard had stopped for such a long time.
“The commissioners decided that Alonso unnecessarily interfered with another competitor, Hamilton, and he has been penalised five places on the grid,” said an FIA statement.
“The attitude of the team at the end of qualification was considered prejudicial to the interests of competition and motor racing.”
McLaren immediately appealed the decision but this will only cover the withdrawal of points not the personal penalty handed out to Alonso.

In other words, Ron Dennis agreed that Alonso got what he deserved, but argues that the rest of the team had nothing to do with it. What do you think are the odds that Alonso will be driving for McLaren next year?

First anniversary stuff

My one-year anniversary with Amazon.com is in less than two weeks, and already a bunch of “end of year” things are happening. I replaced my annual bus pass on Friday, and today I signed the new lease for my apartment at Uwajimaya. ((The rent is up significantly, but not out of line with the market; it’s still a really good deal.)) Oh, and my renter’s insurance just renewed (automatically).
What an interesting year it’s been. Maybe it’s time to go back to IKEA…

On having your cake and eating it…

Pharyngula nails the remarkably silly Oxford theologian Alister McGrath for trying to get away with one of the most common tricks employed by religious apologists. The occasion is an interview with McGrath in a Catholic journal in which he is attacking his bête noire, Richard Dawkins. McGrath’s two-step follows a familiar pattern. First, argue that everyday notions of epistemology and ontology don’t apply to God:

I think Richard Dawkins approaches the question of whether God exists in much the same way as if he’d approach the question of whether there is water on Mars. In other words, it’s something that’s open to objective scientific experimentation. And of course there’s no way you can bring those criteria to bear on God.

The next move (usually several paragraphs later, to minimize cognitive dissonance), is to cite in support of your position the kind of evidence that you just rejected:

As someone who has studied the history and philosophy of science extensively, I think I’ve noticed a number of things that Dawkins seems to have overlooked. One of them is this: One of the most commonly encountered patterns in scientific development is seeing a pattern of observations and then saying, in order to explain these observations, we propose that there exists something that is as yet unobserved but we believe that one day will be observed because if it’s there, it can explain everything that can be observed.
Of course, if you’re a Christian you’ll see immediately that that same pattern is there in thinking about God. We can’t prove there’s a God but he makes an awful lot of sense of things and therefore there’s a very good reason to suppose that this may, in fact, be right.

One moment a “pattern of observations”, which is the raw material of all science, cannot be “brought to bear on God”. The next, this kind of pattern provides “a very good reason to suppose… there’s a God”. PZ charitably calls this “inconsistent”; I think “hypocritical” is closer to the mark.
But then consistency is not a strength of McGrath’s. One minute, atheists are supposed to be attacking Dawkins:

The most serious, negative reviews have come from atheists who feel that Dawkins is doing atheism a very bad turn, that Dawkins is portraying atheism as extremely ignorant and prejudicial.

… and the next, they are worshipping him:

Another thing of interest to you, seeing as we’re talking to a Catholic audience, is that I’ve spoken in many lectures about Richard Dawkins and critiqued him. And very often atheists will stand up and say: “How dare you criticize Richard Dawkins!”
It’s almost as if there’s a new dogma of the infallibility of Richard Dawkins in certain circles and I find that bizarre.

No, Dr. McGrath: what is bizarre is your sloppy thinking (not to mention your total misunderstanding of the nature of science).

MERL RIP

From Xconomy: “Mitsubishi Electric Company of Japan has quietly disbanded the long-term research wing of its most famous international outpost, the Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories (MERL) in Cambridge, MA” When I was working in Sun Labs in Burlington, we interacted with MERL all the time. One example: we organized joint programs for interns working at the various research labs in the Boston area. Both of our labs were working on software agent technology; theirs was called COLLAGEN. You can look it up on the web, but be warned: most of the links to merl.com seem to be dead. Sic transit…

My father and Judy Garland

A couple of days ago, I made an unexpected discovery. 45 years ago, my father won a Grammy.
I hardly knew my father. He walked out when I was 5 years old and returned to the USA, where he made a career as a recording engineer in New York. He visited us briefly during the 1960s, and in the early 1970s he moved to Miami with his partner, Tom. After we moved to the USA, we saw them a couple of times in Massachusetts and Florida. Eventually Tom succumbed to AIDS, in the most painful way, and my father lost interest in life and died in January 1995.
My friend Kate happened to mention my father on Friday, and later that day I decided, on a whim, to Google for him. There were lots of hits, so I narrowed my search: “Robert Arnold recording engineer”. Up came this Wikipedia entry:

The Grammy Award for Best Engineered Album, Non-Classical has been awarded since 1959. The award had several minor name changes… From 1961 to 1962 it was awarded as Best Engineering Contribution – Popular Recording
[…]

Wow. Not just any recording, but a legendary event:Judy Garland at Carnegie Hall - poster

April 23, 1961 – a legendary night not only for Judy Garland, but for the entertainment industry in general. This night, attended by the normal folks and the glitteratti of show business, has gone down in history as one of the greatest nights in show business. Judy was in perfect shape both vocally and performance-wise. The creme-de-la-creme of show business were there, and all were “reaching out to touch Judy Garland” as Rex Reed would state years later. All who were there would talk about it as if it were a revival of some sort.
Capitol wisely decided to record this concert. The two-record set would spend 95 weeks on the charts, 13 of those weeks at #1. The record would garner FIVE Grammy Awards: Best Solo Vocal Performance, Female; Album Of The year (the first time an album by a female artist or a concert recording won this award); Best Album cover; Best Engineering Contribution, Popular Recording; A Special Artists And Repertoire Award given to the set’s production Andy Wiswell).

He never mentioned it – not to me, or to my mother or brother. I certainly never saw any kind of plaque or trophy when I made an (admittedly half-hearted) attempt to sort out his things after he died. Who would have thought it?
I wonder what other surprises Google has for me? But first, I think I need to buy myself a copy.

A busy weekend so far

Tom, Kate and Hannah – the three other members of the “Fellowship” – are visiting Seattle this weekend. On Saturday we explored Pioneer Square, prowled around Uwajimaya, grabbed a hasty lunch, then took a bus over to the Pacific Science Center at Seattle Center. The new Harry Potter film was playing there, and it was the duty of the Fellowship to watch it together. A nice bonus was that it was in the new Boeing iMax Theater, and the last 20% of the film was in 3D!
We adjudged the film “thoroughly enjoyable and satisfying”, which led to discussions of the final Harry Potter volume (which all of us except Tom had read). The recurring issue was the sheer implausibility of the Epilogue to that book. I tried to explain it away as “magic”, but that didn’t feel right.
After the film we explored the Seattle Center. Although the weather was perfect, we decided not to join the extremely long line to go up the Space Needle. Instead we returned to my apartment and kicked back for a while. Around 8pm we headed down South Jackson Street to watch the annual Seafair Torchlight Parade. ((Kate pointed out, correctly, that no torches were in evidence, but nobody seemed worried by this.)) It was a very long ((and occasionally disorganized)) parade, and the final marching band didn’t come through until around 10:30. I’ll try to post some pictures (and video) soon.
Tomorrow we want to get out on the water for a while. Maybe a cruise, or perhaps a ferry ride.

This is getting ridiculous

For many years, I was a cheapskate about digital photography. I had a simple scheme: every 2 years, I would buy the best camera that I could get for $300. Typically the cutting-edge models were in the $500-750 range, but that was OK with me. On one occasion my purchase was forced (I left the old one on a plane), but overall the plan worked well.
I didn’t anticipate the new FinePix F50fd from Fuji. This looks stunning:

Combining a 12-MegaPixel, 7th Generation Super CCD with a 3.0x optical zoom and a 2.7″; high-resolution 230,000 pixel wide angle view LCD… With the addition of Dual Image Stabilization, Face Detection 2.0 Technology with Automatic Red Eye Removal function, and ISO settings of up to ISO 6400, the F50fd takes compact digital cameras to the next level…

Damn right it does. And at last Fuji has abandoned its quixotic reliance on the proprietary xD format; the F50fd will accept SD-HC memory. OK, there are some compromises: you’ll only get ISO 6400 at 3MP resolution, and the best you can get at 12MP is ISO 1600. I can live with that. No Bluetooth, unfortunately. (It supports IR, but does anybody really care?) In any case, for $299.95, this looks like a winner. It must be two years since my last upgrade, don’t you think?

Seattle Sounders 2 : Preston North End 1

Just after lunch today I received an email from the Seattle Sounders (US soccer) club, telling me that there was an “international exhibition match” this evening. When I hear “international exhibition football”, I tend to think of the Real Madrid match I saw this time last year, or Sunday’s much-ballyhooed encounter between Los Angeles and Chelsea. But football isn’t just a winner-takes-all sport, and there are lots of teams that play international exhibitions. Like… Preston North End?! OK, I admit that surprised me. Of course the name is legendary:

In the past Preston were famously successful, being the first winners of “The Double” in English football. In 1888–89 Preston became the first, and only, team to go throughout an entire season unbeaten in both the league and FA Cup — only Arsenal F.C., in 2003–04, have managed to have an unbeaten season in the top division since. They were league champions again the following season, but have not won the title since.

These days they play in the Championship, where they finished 7th last year.
During a staff meeting this afternoon, I pondered whether to go to the match. There were pros and cons. Pro: the stadium is across the street, it would be easy and cheap to get a ticket, I could sit anywhere I wanted, there would be lots of English fans, and it would be fun to watch a match. Con: the last time I saw an English team in the US was a disaster (for England), I would probably be surrounded by squads of identically-uniformed ten-year old girls (with their parents and coaches), and the only food on offer was likely to be hot dogs and Bud Lite.
I decided to go. I wound up sitting with a group of Preston fans from England, and so I joined in their singing and chanting. Unfortunately, the match was another debacle. Preston started strong, while the Sounders looked really tentative, and Preston went ahead midway through the half. After the break, Preston slowed down (?jet-lag) and Seattle picked up their pace. Their first goal was something of a fluke, coming off the crossbar twice; by the time they scored their second, the Preston defence was simply too slow. A draw would have reflected the run of play, but 2-1 wasn’t unreasonable.
And now I have to find some real food, to make up for the hot dog and Bud Lite…