Phase 1 may bore but try Phase 2

09/10/12 13:08 [Tuesday]
(Phase 1)
A few months ago I exposed the power switch on an old laptop I possess by cutting a hole in the case using a Stanley knife. My objective was to automate the turning-on of the computer by connecting it up to a mains-powered timer such as you buy to turn table lamps and what-not on and off according to a schedule. I got as far as soldering a wire to the power side of the push-button and making a connection to the earth side getting at that via a USB port (because it was too fiddly, certainly using the soldering-iron I had, to connect to the earth side of the power switch directly). This worked, in that making a link between the two connections simulated closing the power switch so that the computer turned on.
As I say, matters stood like that for a number of months. But yesterday and this morning I have completed the project (but for actually testing the automatic turning-on of the mains-powered timer, which I have set to occur at 5 am). The mains-powered timer has a transformer plug plugged into it this driving a 12V relay whose contacts make the link between the power side of the computer on-off and the earth side. More than this: because the mains-powered timer stays ‘on’ for a quarter of an hour minimum I have rigged a 5V relay to a USB port from the computer this relay breaking the power to the 12V relay once the USB port becomes live. I have tested this set-up by switching on the mains-powered timer using its manual switch, and the laptop starts up correctly.
I now have the pleasure of writing a VB program to fire up when the computer turns on, initially simply recording (in a log file written to the hard disk) the time the computer has switched on and, probably, a note every minute that it is still switched on. My hope is at the next stage to get the program to shut the computer down (although the API call in VB6 to do this doesn’t work I find on modern operating system versions).
(Phase 2)
Something that has been in my mind on and off since I was at university is the nature of error. I have in a sudden inspiration got further this morning with my thoughts on the nature of error than I have previously (which I take to mean the Risperdal at the present dosage is helping me to think clearly).
I tie this idea of what error is in with my ideas on democracy. That is, it is possible for a majority of people to believe something or accept something or do something and it still be in error. This is proved by the existence of mistakes of fact in Wikipedia, or almost proved (because a majority of people might know the facts are wrong but never bother to correct them).
Specifically this morning I have considered mistakes in grammar. The modern trend in language theory is to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, but you still can’t get away from the fact that some usages are in error. If I say, ‘Their coming at 5 o’clock,’ when what I mean is, ‘They’re coming at 5 o’clock,’ it is an error. Supposing there were some similar construction which was used by a majority of English-speakers it would still be erroneous (but what is found in practice I imagine is that people using grammar erroneously are not consistent one with another, so that there is no democratically agreed mistaken construction).
I’m still working on how I can be certain that ‘Their coming at 5 o’clock’ is erroneous but it is something related to the unnecessary complexity of presuming that one meaning of ‘their’ is a possessive pronoun but another is an alternative contraction of ‘they’re’. The difficulty with that is the fact that in English (especially British English) there are unnecessary irregularities, for example doubling a consonant sometimes after an unstressed syllable when the usual rule is to double if the syllable is stressed (‘marvellous’ in British English). I seem to be arriving at the idea that unnecessary complexities are correct and not erroneous if they are democratically elected by majority usage over a period of time, not simply in the current period.
I must say this ties in rather well with my notions of what is ‘good music’. Modern popular music may be democratically chosen over a short present period, but surely I must be right to think music by Beethoven is better: because Beethoven has been democratically chosen on the moving average of votes over a number of centuries (and over a number of jurisdictions).
In mathematics it is possible to say with certainty that some structures are erroneous the reason being they are self-contradictory. It is possible for mistaken proofs to be accepted for a period, but in this case too they get found out by the passage of time (as far as I can assess).
I’m almost coming to the question of hesitancy versus confidence here. ‘I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.’