« February 2005 | Main | April 2005 »
March 31, 2005
Brain-damaged Terri Schiavo left this world 15 years ago
It wasn't that Terri Schiavo couldn't tell her opinion at this point. She had lost her ability to have an opinion 15 years ago. Crucial parts of her brain have been dead since - according to courts and experts, she was in a persistent vegetative state (PVS). (The picture shows her before her 1990 collapse - taken from Wikipedia.)
Terri Schiavo didn't feel what was happening around her, she felt not worry nor fear, she had no plans or hopes and after all we know, she did not dream. I believe she has lost what once made her a thinking human being. I'm sorry for the tragedy that happened to her 15 years ago, but I am glad that her wishes were finally respected.
To say it publicly: I would not wish to be kept alive as a basket-case. While I would welcome everything that could be done to save my life, the term life, in this context, refers to a human being with the essential cognitive capability to reason and, at least in some form, to communicate with the outer world. My spirit is to contribute to society and to people around me, and feeding and nursing my mindless body over decades only does the opposite. In many respects, existing in a PVS would hurt my dignity as the individual that I was before entering a PVS.
Posted by dr at 9:09 PM | TrackBack
March 30, 2005
Bad human-company interfaces: Today's pick is British Telecom
A while ago, I listened to Ian Pearson, "Futurologist" at British Telecom, talk about how networks of computers will be ubiquitous - just like a computer in every cigarette butt, communicating with all the other creatures of the ash tray, to create a wireless mesh network (and maybe make life better for the tobacco industry).
Readers will find it surprising that while BT thinks every cigarette will be able to communicate, at this point British Telecom doesn't even manage to communicate with its customers efficiently.
I had to cancel a BT phone line (landline) this morning, and it took me half an hour to get through to a person and to convince them to enter these things into their computer for me. Turns out they have no e-mail address that I can write to, no fax number either, and a call centre that keeps me waiting for ages.
For the inclined, here's a brief history of what has happened:
Dave dials 150, goes through countless touch-tone menu options, is then kept waiting for minutes, gives up, redials some 0800 number. After more menus, Dave gets to speak to a call centre agent.
Dave: Hi, I'd like to cancel my phone line.
Agent: Are you moving home?
Dave: No, I'm not.
Agent: So you'd like to stop the phone line alltogether. May I ask why you'd like to do that?
Dave: Well, long story, what it boils down to is that BT made a mistake when they changed the account to be in my name, and they cancelled DSL internet on this phone line. So I got it through someone else and I don't need this line anymore.
Agent: So may I ask who is your new provi... (boring convo skipped...)
Agent: OK, I need to pass you on to another department, hold on please.
Dave: Will they answer right away or will they make we wait?
Agent: Oh, I don't know.
Dave: Because I've been waiting for quite some time to get through to you!
Agent: I apologise for that [more formulas], I don't know how busy they are over there. I just need to pass you on.
Dave: Hmm, OK.
... music is playing, repeatedly, for three minutes.
(The same) agent: Hello? Can I take your account # please... name please? ... address? ...postcode...?
... Can you hold on please?
... music is playing, for another two minutes.
(The same) agent: Hello Mr. Reitter? OK, you need to talk to the other department.
Dave: Well, I'm not really keen on waiting in line there again... why don't they just call me back?
Agent: Can I just give you this number? It's a direct phone number, it's 0800 (...)
Dave: No, I won't wait. cCuld you just give me their e-mail address please?
Agent: I'm afraid they don't have e-mail, you have to go through a website, [dictates slowly: www.bt.com], but see, in this case, if you'd like to cancel a line, they want you to do that directly, you know?
Dave: Well, I can sure send them a direct e-mail, directly from my desk?
Agent: Uuuh, I understand what you mean, but you need to tell them, you know, I mean, you know?
Dave: Why don't you give me their fax number?
Agent: Uuuh, I don't know if they have a fax, hmm, hold on.
... music is playing, for three minutes. I almost decide to hang up.
Agent: So, I'll take your request, I'm not really meant to do that, but let's see..
Dave: (very grateful!)
BT's call centre is a classical example of failed human-company interface (HCI)! Why the hell can't I send a signed e-mail to a telecommunications company? Why can't they just call me back? It's BT, calling back comes for free, and they could even schedule it. Instead, they make me talk to dozens of underpaid call-centre staff that are on their job for under 18 months on average. Good thing I cancelled BT's expensive landline.
Posted by dr at 5:26 PM | TrackBack
March 29, 2005
At the bookshop: the bullshit table
Every decent book store needs a bullshit table. Really.
(Recently found at Blackwell's in Edinburgh, Scotland. Their travel section is quite respectable though, and the staff are friendly.)
Posted by dr at 4:36 PM | TrackBack
March 28, 2005
Iain Banks: The Wasp Factory
Sand, the sea, wind and Scottish rain. Bombs, a rogue monster rabbit, children being murdered - that's what Frank Couldhame's life is about, as he grows up on an island off Scotland's coast. A rare thing to see in a novel, Iain Banks' classic The Wasp Factory portrays a psycho kid in an intriguing way. I met Frank's intolerable cruelty to people and animals with some bisbelief, and it isn't until the final few moments that I understood what train Frank is riding on. The 16-year old turns his island into warground. He patrols the dunes, plays a little God with his Factory and a little combat soldier with the rabbits on the island. With three murders to his name, Frank is serious about his missions, the first one he committed at the age of five (noone knows). It's not surprising that the Wasp Factory he has built in a shed does not produce insects, but implements the mechanized and ritual killing of them.
Frank prepares to defend the island with his homemade bombs, tripwires, even a slingshot, waiting for a big bang that is yet to come. Frank and his dad are expecting Frank's brother, who sure fits in well with the family: just broken out of a closed institution, he's heading home now. I'll say so much: Frank will win his war game. He won't make his confession, and he'll finally find out about the dirty little secret of his life.
PS: thanks to the Woolamaloo Gazette, written by a Edinburgh-based book expert, whose somewhat random entry about a dinner with Banks prompted me to check out this author. Chaos theory at work, I guess.
Posted by dr at 8:48 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 18, 2005
Tortoise in the backyard
The neighbors keep two fairly large tortoises in the backyard. Here's one of them.
More pictures can be found in my photo-blog, including a private section for friends.
Posted by dr at 11:10 AM | TrackBack
March 17, 2005
Myth Sapir-Whorf: We won't think more than we can say.
(In)famous among linguists: the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. In a nutshell, it says that our thought is either determined or at least strongly influenced by the language we speak. This thesis, originally brought forward by A. v. Humboldt, has influenced generations of thinkers and political activists. It predicts that we actually think differently about someone, depending on whether we call him a nigger as opposed to a African-American.
And indeed, experiments seem to show that speakers of a language that can only count up to three indeed have problems counting and indentifier larger (>3) sets of objects.
The problem with this is that everyone who learns a language also adopts a whole cultural mindset. Of course, a car mechanic knows more types of screwdrivers and has learned more words to identify them. Of course, people who have never learned to count to 10 and usually don't use that many objects in their daily lives won't do well in the math experiments. Our language merely reflects our cultural reality. Individuals don't need language to think.
Society, however, needs language to think! It's our main way of communication. By using politically correct terms (say: Sinti and Roma), I can express misalignment (disagreement) with the coined meaning for the default term (here: Gypsies - which is not synonymous, but similar). However, the misalignment technique only works for a couple of years.
The reason: our communicative standards underly a fast-paced evolution. The meanings of African-American and Sinti and Roma are subject to cultural evolution: once such terms see widespread use, their meanings will converge to some consensus. Meaning, of course, lives on what society thinks of a concept, or a group of people, in short, the context in which the word is used most often. That obviously depends on its cultural, social foundations and the way people live. Cultural foundations aren't changed by language manipulation. If we associate something positive or negative with nigger, we will attribute that to African-American sooner or later, too, if the usage context is the same. Too bad: there goes our well laid-out plan for organized p.c. misalignment. We end up exactly where we started.
And that is the big lie underlying political correctness. Political activists use "politically correct" terms to cover up unfavorable public opinions and bad social conditions. Even that doesn't work so well. As individuals we're perfectly able to think and say something overly good or bad about someone right-away, whether he's Physically Challened or handicapped - no evolution needed!
That doesn't mean everyone always converges on the same meaning for a given word. In fact, different generations associate different concepts with the same word, and different levels of education with a certain way of speaking. What does that lead to? Uniformly across continents, elders seem look at young people with contempt for the way they use language. They assume that the young generation lacks culture and ability to reason, because they use shorter words and entirely new codes of communication. Again, the young people are just a little further in the linguistic evolution. They do not necessarily belong of unfavorable parts of society. Humboldt's misguided Weltanschauung has successfully spread prejudice among the older generation.
Another example: institutions like the Académie Française. They follow a prescriptive, top-down approach at influencing linguistic development: the Académie decides about the way people are supposed to talk. Needless to say, people listen, people agree, and then people go on speaking the way they'd like to speak. Again, language is a product of evolution, and not one of creation. Another reason why political correctness can't work if the underlying roots aren't changed.
I concede: our cognitive and linguistic abilities are connected, like everything in our brains is. But language as a thought filter is a popular intellectual myth.
Posted by dr at 8:44 AM | Comments (1) | TrackBack
March 11, 2005
Germanism Eins, Zwei
Sometimes, people that meet me are a little suspicious, because I don't sound like a proper German - occasionally, I even have to get out my German passport to convince them. At parties, I used to say I'm Canadian, which tends to work well until someone goes, "Hey cool, me too, I'm from Toronto, eh!". Besides, I don't want people to think I'm an American in disguise.
Germans, like Americans nowadays, sometimes have an issue with their heritage. In Germany, it's considered inappropriate to say, I'm proud to be German!. Germans don't have flagpoles attached to their houses like Americans have them, and in general, at least the intellectually upper half of the population is fairly modest in their chosen affiliation with Germany. For good reasons, Germans have ceased to be be proud in the years before 1945.
But hey, one's nationality is not really one's greatest achievement anyways, is it? I tend to say: I'm European. I felt reassured when I read what Germany's most prominent late-night comedian, Harald Schmidt said: Only when I see those grumpy faces at the baggage claim, that's when I realize: I've come home.
Among the things I miss about Germany: the fun language, of which I will happily give you a little sample. To enjoy it properly, may I ask my English-speaking readers that you lean back in their Germanism-appreciation chairs and read the following blog comment (which I found here). It helps if you read it out lout with a proper German accent:
I am full your opinion. Sometimes it is very important (and clever) to think twice before doing "things". So it should be very important ... to set for the first time an unmistakable sign.
So after that everyone know what they better don't do.
Posted by dr at 9:42 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack
March 10, 2005
iPod Shuffle - does the job
Got my iPod Shuffle - finally. Here's one way to carry it:
Suprisingly, this Apple gadget is much less exciting than the other Apple products I've bought so far. It has little functionality, but is small, light and very cheap and does one thing very well: play music. Transferring music onto the iPod with my ageging USB 1.0-enabled Powerbook is not quite as slow as I thought (it takes a couple of minutes to fill my 512 Shuffle). The cord, however, is annoyingly long - and if you carry it on the lanyard, as shown in their commercials, you tend to get stuck when walking around. The solution is simple and ugly:
Getting the Shuffle was difficult enough. Apple seems to be getting merchandise to my local Apple shop only after everyone else has delivered, and when I finally ordered it from the UK Apple Store (serviced from Ireland), TNT managed to either deliver it to the wrong person (Hello "Mr. Chopley", thanks for signing for MY package!), or simply nicked it. Whatever. The nice guys from Scotsys finally made the deal.
All in all, the Shuffle works as expected and can be recommended, if you have your PC/Laptop at hand most of the time and need music just while commuting or working out. Then, the Shuffle saves you a lot of money and the extra power adapter etc. when travelling.
Posted by dr at 7:55 PM | TrackBack
March 6, 2005
Apple vs. ThinkSecret: Yes, journalists may hurt companies.
May journalistic news sites publish secret information coming from companies, even if it hurts the companies? Of course they may! Are they allowed to protect their sources, as any journalist may do? I think so. The discussion about the case Apple vs. ThinkSecret shows how many people disregard essential democratic elements such as news journalism - for example The Shape of Days.
What happened in the case of ThinkSecret was that, for example, Apple's iPod Mini was introduced at ThinkSecret weeks before the official announcement came. They didn't get it all right at ThinkSecret, though: the official introduction of the iPod Mini became a slight disappointment because it turned out $50 more expensive than planned. This clearly damaged Apple's stock price.
Jeff Harrell, freelance (and un-paid) "opinion writer" writes at The Shape of Days:
It seems self-evident to me that [ThinkSecret's author Nicholas Ciarelli] did in fact actively solicit trade secrets, [and] went on to publish these trade secrets on the Internet, doing irreparable harm to Apple in the process.
No doubt - but is that bad?
When Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein and their colleages published information about a breakin at the Watergate hotel, they most certainly caused irreparable harm to President Nixon and his party. Without the due protection of their source Deep Throat, a person with criminal intent would have continued to rule one of the world's most prominent countries.
Reporters, whether they are big-shots or college kids, need to be able to point their fingers at politicians and companies alike. Jeff Harrell writes that Companies have a right to keep certain information confidential. Certainly - if they can do so. But the public must be given the option to supervise things, and there can be no a priori decision about what kind of information cannot be published. If we followed Harrell's argument, everything can become a trade secret in the eyes of a victim company. If a local chemical plant polutes the air over decades, it's a trade secret. If an oil company is supporting military dictators in, say, Nigeria, it's a trade secret. Any whistle-blowers could come under scrutiny. Both Watergate and the toxic waste example illustrate very worthwhile journalism, as Jeff says. But why should it be up to a judge to decide what can be published? Jeff Harrell's opinion exemplifies a remarkable lack of sensibility for the foundations of our still-somewhat-free democratic society.
Is ThinkSecret-maker Ciarelli a journalist, as argued in this affidavit? The division of journalists vs. non-journalists is a out-dated in times of citizen journalism in blogs.
Lastly, we can try to apply a more formal way to check if the ThinkSecret piece was actually newsworthy. It looks like their articles are interesting only because of their timeliness. The information contained therein is always made public - by Apple. Consequence: not very newsworthy.
But hold on...: if published months in advance, the ThinkSecret articles provide a valueable service to the readers. If I know they're getting a, say, G5 Powerbook out in July, I won't shell out 2000 EUR for a new G4 Powerbook in May. The news would be that Apple is overcharging its customers. Therefore: useful, thus newsworthy.
As in any market, if the participants (me!) know more about the market situation, they can make more favorable decisions about their actions. That leads to an optimization according to demand and supply - in short, Apple will have to lower prices significantly on models that are close to the end of their lifespan. It seems to be that the publication of alledged trade secrets can be a normal factor in an economic market.
It is not a journalist's business if his informants violate their own private agreements with their employer. Journalists and those producing newsworthy publications must be able to protect their informants to establish transparency, whether a company or a politican gets hurt in the process or not.
This discussion transcends our obligation as member of Our Holy Church of Jobs to follow Apple wherever we go. It is important for a free society.
Addendum: Note that this argument is not a legal one. Neither am I qualified to write about California law, nor do I care to interpret the situation in their legal framework. Some information about what the claims are, may be helpful, however. This has been written by some "Anonymous Coward" in a short but heated discussion at MacSlash:
Sorry, not when it comes to trade secrets. That is the key point: the information leaked was considered a trade secret. Trade secrets are treated differently. If I dig through your trash once it's on the curb, I'm OK. If I dig through your employer's trash, even though it's sitting on the curb, I can be charge with corporate espionage. Apple's claims are: 1) The publisher should have recognized that the information would be considered a trade secret and should not have published the information, 2) Even if they didn't recognize the fact that the information was a trade secret, the fact that is was a trade secret means that a crime has been committed and therefore, not revealing their source is obstruction of justice, 3) Apple had warned them several times in the past that they were treading on thin ice, and 4) They had actually solicited people to break their NDA's which is further evidence to a crime being committed.
Another Anonymous Coward adds:
Okay, I see from your web site that you're in the UK. Maybe this is a cross-cultural thing.
Yes, both the people who posted on Think Secret and the people who provided them with their information are being accused, by Apple, of breaking the law. There are two different laws involved. The first is tort law, which says that it's illegal to break a contract. Somebody who breaks a contract can be liable for damages to the other party. In this case, somebody with access to Apple secrets leaked them, which was a contract violation. That person (or people) broke the law.
The second is the Uniform Trade Secrets Act, which in California makes it illegal to knowingly induce somebody to disclose a secret. Anybody who does that, as the Think Secret guy did, has broken the law and is liable for damages.
You're saying that because we don't have a good way to decide who is and who's not a journalist, everybody is a journalist. The author of the article is saying that because we don't have a good way to decide, nobody is a journalist. Nobody gets special protection, nobody is automatically above the law.
A further comment with links to various laws is here.
Posted by dr at 12:08 PM | Comments (4) | TrackBack
March 5, 2005
Ask HotOrNot: Should I get a hair cut?
All these difficult decisions in life. Accept the Hardvard or the Stanford offer? Merc or Beemer? Go out with Ann or Amy? Get a hair cut today or not?
At least with regard to the last question, I could never really make up my mind. I decided to run a little experiment: I'd let the public decide! What follows is probably one of the more narcissistic entries in my little diary here.
On HotOrNot you can put up your picture for rating, and of course you can rate other people. My pictures and their respective ratings are shown below. Website visitors could give ratings between 1 (ugly as hell) and 10 (ultimately hot). Notice how much the 'running Dave' polarized people? As for the final results, a big red 8 means that the picture is ranked at around 80 percent - it doesn't mean that on average, people gave me an 8 out of 10. That is, you can see a high ranking and medium ratings. How unfortunate. The final verdict: get a hair cut, and mess up your hair.
Big disclaimer: Ratings not normalized per subject (blaim Hotornot), pictures were only controlled for hair status, not for lighting or other contextual factors, smiling, the like. Finally, the author couldn't be bothered to run a significance test.