The iPod and 'modern science's greatest mystery' is explored quite entertainingly by a Princeton professor. And you know, it's almost enough to make one want to be a computer scientist. Oh, wait...

In truth, I don't really feel like a CS-person, but I'd put that down to the lack of exposure to a lot of things that pure CS seems to focus on. The kinds of theoretical analysis of algorithms I've done, for starters, have never even remotely approached the ingenuity (or mathematical fluency) demonstrated by some of Knuth's work. Of late, I've been working on a project that is I suppose theoretical CS in some ways. After all, when your storage requirements are n^e-2 (e being desired error), you're not going to win too many friends in the applied sciences. What have I learnt?

Well, for starters, it's not all that bad. But I must state a caveat - perhaps I think that only because till now, my work has involved reading and assimilating a wide range of papers. As of yet, there is no contribution that I have had to come up with (save pithy summaries that I make for those who are interested). As it goes with these things, once that starts, it won't be too much of a surprise to see me write here about how I long to be studying against a set text rather than gazing out into the unknown, having to figure my way all by myself.

It also makes me wish I were able to understand what these clever people talk about sometimes. Knuth is taken to be something of a God in CS-circles, but to me, he is also something of a mystery. I'm talking about his mind. How one can assimilate and contribute so much, 'tis a mystery. But there are far more common people who strike me as being unbelievably adept at being able to think in terms of algorithms and plans of attack when confronting a new problem; it sometimes makes me wonder if I'm cut out for this field after all.

Perhaps best of all, there's enough maths to satiate my appetite and make me forget how I cruelly abandoned this enchantress at the end of last year. Now I realize that maybe I didn't need to take a maths unit just to feel "in touch"; especially since I find I have no idea what is going on in the subject. But let's worry about that come exam time, shall we?

Actually, in one of the author's interviews, he says something I find strangely offensive. It is words to the effect of mathematics producing beautiful one-liners, but CS producing literature. The analogy is meant to indicate that CS can be large and messy, but ultimately is capable of a more satisfying analysis of reality. I occasionally find myself being taken in by his poetic descriptions of CS, but mostly I find myself arguing that surely mathematics produces these one-liners on the surface, but with far more staggering literature that's at work underneath. It's a little disconcerting that I should argue for the inferiority of my field of choice, but there you go.