Does Vonage think Republicans are “evil-berries”?
April 10th, 2013
I know “funny machine translation” has been done to death, but I can’t resist:
Date : Apr 06 2013 11:58:21 AM From : unavailable To : Dave “Hi this is Gabriel Gomez call. I wanna(?) to call here-this(?) myself and let you know that I’m running for United States Senate and evil-berry(?) Republican primary. I’m not a politician I’m in the guy is(?) … ceiling(?) pilot and the-supplement-or-rent-i’ve(?) lived the American dream and I know that it must you can’t(?) be preserved. The rid of lack of ideas in Washington the lack of courage. I hope you’ll visit www. Gomez. Ethel r(?) MA.com. To learn about my plan to reboot(?) Congress term limits a balanced budget amendment and i-live-in-the(?) door just a few of the super boring. All five-four(?) I would love to hear from you to discuss your ideas for how to fix Washington. You can e-mail me at Gabriel at Gomez Apple R M a.com or call us at 6173494113. Again your ideas and more about our campaign.”
… more. Please listen to your voicemail for the remainder of this message.— Brought to you by Vonage —
This email was sent from a mailbox that does not accept replies.
If you require assistance from Customer Care, please visit our Contact Us page athttp://www.vonage.com/help_contactUS.php
If you listen to the message, it doesn’t sound as bad as all that. Does Vonage’s transcription engine really think that “evil-berry” is the most likely thing it heard? Maybe.
Perhaps it had to come to this…
December 18th, 2012
From Techdirt, 2012-12-17:
China Tries To Block Encrypted Traffic
from the collapsing-the-tunnels deptDuring the SOPA fight, at one point, we brought up the fact that increases in encryption were going to make most of the bill meaningless and ineffective in the long run, someone closely involved in trying to make SOPA a reality said that this wasn’t a problem because the next bill he was working on is one that would ban encryption. This, of course, was pure bluster and hyperbole from someone who was apparently both unfamiliar with the history of fights over encryption in the US, the value and importance of encryption for all sorts of important internet activities (hello online banking!), as well as the simple fact that “banning” encryption isn’t quite as easy as you might think. Still, for a guide on one attempt, that individual might want to take a look over at China, where VPN usage has become quite common to get around the Great Firewall. In response, it appears that some ISPs are now looking to block traffic that they believe is going through encrypted means.
A number of companies providing “virtual private network” (VPN) services to users in China say the new system is able to “learn, discover and block” the encrypted communications methods used by a number of different VPN systems.
China Unicom, one of the biggest telecoms providers in the country, is now killing connections where a VPN is detected, according to one company with a number of users in China.
This is the culmination of at least 35 years of official concern about the effects of personal computers.
I’m old enough to remember. As soon as computers became affordable to individuals in the late 1970s there was talk about “licensing” computer users. Talking Heads even wrote a song about it (Life During Wartime).
The good guys won, the bad guys lost.
Then, even before the Web, we had the Clipper chip. The EFF was created in response. And again the good guys won.
Then we had the CDA, and then CDA2. And again, the bad guys lost and the lovers of liberty won.
In the West, the war is mostly over (yet eternal vigilance remains the price of liberty).
Not so in the rest of the world, as last week’s ITU conference in Dubai demonstrated.
I say – let them try it. Let them lock down all the VPNs, shut off all the traffic they can’t parse. Let’s have the knock-down, drag-out fight between the hackers and the suits.
Stewart Brand was right. Information wants to be free. I know math. I know about steganography. I know about economics.
I know who will win.
Another airplane window photo
November 29th, 2012
I haven’t been able to find my glory photos, but here is a nice shot out the airplane window of another airliner at the same altitude, with it’s contrail.
(click for full size)
You’re looking south on a flight to Boston from some airport in Europe. Taken 3 December 2005 with a Canon A95 compact camera. Cropped and sharpened a little, that’s all.
Here’s a horribly low-resolution video taken about 5 minutes earlier:
Photos from an airplane window
November 14th, 2012
Back in November 2011 I was flying from San Francisco to Boston, and saw this out the airplane window:
That’s Manhattan and greater New York.
I grabbed my camera (a rather ordinary Canon G11) and started snapping. Here are the best (click on any pic for full size):
These are all un-retouched JPEGs, straight of of the camera. Amazing.
I just made a little animated GIF out of a few later pix:
Questions are more valuable than answers
October 24th, 2012
…at least if you’re Google.
The interesting site Terms of Service; Didn’t Read gives Google a thumbs-down because “Google can use your content for all their existing and future services”.
I don’t think a thumbs-down is really fair here – I mean, that’s the whole point of Google.
Google is a service that gives out free answers in exchange for valuable questions.
Answers are worthless to Google (though not to you) because Google already knows those answers. But it doesn’t know your questions. So the questions are valuable (to Google, not to you). Because Google learns something from every question.
When you start typing a search into Google and it suggests searches based on what other people have searched for, that’s using your private information (your search history) to help other people. They’re not giving away any of your personal information (nobody but Google knows what you searched for or when), but they are using your information.
Google gets lots of useful information from the questions that people ask it. It uses that information to offer valuable services (like search suggestions) to other people (and to you), that they make money from (mostly by selling advertising).
That’s not a bad thing. It’s the only way to do many of the amazing, useful, and free things that Google does. I’m perfectly fine with it, but you have to more-or-less trust Google to stick to their promise to keep your private info private.
I think Google does a lot more of this than most people suspect.
When you’re driving and using Google Map to navigate, you’re getting free maps and directions. But Google is getting real-time data from you about how much traffic is on that road, and how fast it’s moving.
When you search for information on flu symptoms, Google learns something about flu trends in your area.
Sometimes I ask Google a question using voice recognition and it doesn’t understand. After a couple of tries, I type in the query. I’ve just taught Google what I was saying – next time it’s much more likely to understand.
When you use GMail, Google learns about patterns of world commerce and communication, who is connected to who, who is awake at what time of day, etc. Even if it doesn’t read the contents of the mail.
When you search for a product, Google learns about demand in that market, by location and time of day and demographics (it knows a lot about you and your other interests).
Google learns from our questions – answers are the price Google pays for them.
Americans love war
October 21st, 2012
Probably so does the rest of humanity.
Here in the USA, we have:
- The War on Cancer
- The War on Drugs
- The War on Poverty
- The War on Drunk Driving
- Hoover’s “War on Crime”
- Jimmy Carter said the 1970s energy crisis was “the moral equivalent of war”
Then we have the “Good War”, war movies (good guys vs. bad guys), war heroes, and countless war metaphors.
All these wars are supposed to be good things. Necessary things.
Whatever else he was, Jimmy Carter didn’t seem like a nasty guy. But think about “the moral equivalent of war”. Was Carter saying that he thought it was OK to lie in order to deal with the energy crisis? To cheat? Steal? Kill?
Cheating, lying, destruction, theft, and murder are all allowed (indeed, acclaimed) in war.
So is groupism that would otherwise be criminal – in war, when the enemy leaders attack you, it’s OK to respond by killing innocent civilians – so long as they’re subjects of your enemy. Or, even, just in the way.
We declare war on whatever we don’t like because, in war, the normal rules of civilized society don’t apply. And people, especially people in power, don’t like to be constrained by the rules of civilized behavior.
The universe is not parsimonius
October 21st, 2012
One of the defining characteristics of the universe is that it is not parsimonious.
Consider that fish produce many thousands of offspring to replace themselves once – all but two don’t make it to reproduction.
Consider evolution.
Consider the proportion of the Earth’s mass that participates in the biosphere. Of the solar system’s mass. Of the galaxy’s mass.
Consider the number of planets in the universe, and the number that have people on them (~ one).
Consider the proportion of the universe’s mass that is even matter. And the proportion of matter that has an atomic number greater than two.
Now consider the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
The universe is not parsimonious.
[This is not to disparage Occam’s Razor. Parsimony in explanation is indispensable. But the thing being explained need not itself be parsimonious.]
Reshaping DNA
May 30th, 2012
Why school reform never works
March 4th, 2012
Annie Keegan has a posting on open.salon.com about textbook quality that has been getting a lot of attention lately. It’s worth a quick read.
She bemoans the quality of (US) K-8 math textbooks, and blames it on rushed and underfunded development schedules caused by the greed of a quasi-monopoly of “educational publishers left after rabid buyouts and mergers in the 90s”, plus squeezed budgets.
Of course this is true in a trivial sense – the textbooks are in fact horrible, publishers do try to maximize profits, budgets are always less than one would wish, and the textbooks are indeed “there’s no other way to put it—crap”[1].
But she completely misunderstands the causes. And this misunderstanding is likely to lead to more of the same problems, instead of solutions.
Keegan writes:
At one time, a writer in this industry could write a book and receive roughly 6% royalties on sales. The salesperson who sold the product, however, earned (and still does) a commission upwards of 17% on the same product. This sort of pay structure never made sense to me; without the product, there’d be nothing to sell, after all. But this disparity serves to illustrate the thinking that has been entrenched industry-wide for decades—that sales and marketing is more valuable than product.
First, the 6% royalty on all sales of the book is not comparable to the 17% commission on an individual sale to a single school. The salesperson only earns commission on what she sells. There are many salespeople who split that 17% of the book’s total sales, but only one author who collects all of the royalties.
And I don’t think Keegan would complain that a bookshop earning a 40% markup on a book is an indication that retailing is somehow more important than authorship.
Second, the “the thinking that has been entrenched industry-wide” does not decide how “valuable” each contribution to making a book is. There could never be any consensus on that.
Instead, compensation is based on supply and demand – if more people want to be textbook authors, that increases the supply and reduces the pay. If less people want to sell them, that decreases the supply and increases the value of salespeople. If Ms. Keegan thinks salespeople have a better deal, perhaps she should become one – this is how the market shifts labor (and other resources) from less-valuable to more-valuable purposes. If she prefers to remain an author despite the (supposedly) lower pay, that’s her choice, and that choice shows that, to her, being an author (with lower pay) is better than being a book salesperson (with higher pay). She ought not to complain if she is better off — by her own standards.
But none of these misunderstandings get to the heart of why the books are “crap”.
The books are not crap because of the publisher’s greed and the limited budgets.
People who make televisions and plumbing supplies and instant noodles are greedy humans, too. And the people who buy them always wish they had more money to spend than they do. Yet these things aren’t crap.
School textbooks are crap because, unlike televisions and plumbing supplies and instant noodles, the people who make the decision to buy them (administrators and school boards) are not the same people who use them (students and parents).
These two groups of people – buyers and users – have different priorities. The quality of content is foremost for the users of the textbook, but the buyers are easily influenced by other things – fun trips to “educational seminars”, fancy lunches paid by salespeople, kickbacks of varying forms and legality, etc.
In the end, publishers must supply what buyers want, or face being replaced by other publishers who will. What students and parents want is relevant only insofar as it influences what buyers want. Even if a publisher were to have high standards, ensure adequate budgets and schedules, etc. to produce a high-quality product, this would only mean that their expenses would be higher than those of publishers who concentrate only on what sells books.
This problem cannot be solved by changing how publishers work or how school boards and administrators buy textbooks. Buyers will always do what is good for buyers and sellers (publishers) will always do what is good for sellers – increasing budgets simply means they will do more of it. This is an iron law of nature.
The only solution is to make the buyers care more about the wishes of the users – parents and students. As long as students are assigned to schools without choice, administrators have little reason to fear losing students and the funding the comes with them – it’s easy to prioritize (and rationalize) their personal interests as buyers over the interests of users. School choice forces administrators to care about losing dissatisfied students and parents – and so to demand quality textbooks.
Like pushing on a string, changing what suppliers offer does not change what buyers want. Buyers will simply find other suppliers with less scruples. You can only pull on a string – change will happen only when buyers demand better quality from publishers, and that can happen only when buyers and users have the same interest – quality textbooks and quality education.
————-
[1] Of course the whole issue with math textbooks is moot because math doesn’t change; there’s no reason to update math textbooks in the first place. If you’re a school, my advice is to find a good math textbook that’s 100+ years old (and therefore out of copyright) and use it.
But book salespeople won’t take you on fun trips if you do that, so while this advice is best for your students, it might not be best for you as an administrator. Which is my larger point.
(Some will say that math doesn’t change but teaching methods do – I agree, but for the very same reasons that textbooks are “crap”, they don’t change for the better.)
A Day in the Future
May 19th, 2011
(This was originally posted 2011-01 on Raptitude.com by David Cain. Reposted here by permission.)
I awake in bed. I’m warm and safe, like every morning. Outside it is twenty below zero, but from inside my home winter seems far away.
As I rise and stretch, I notice I’m sore. Not from tending the fields though. I have no fields. Some unseen person does all the field-tending for me. Sometimes I forget that there’s any field-tending going on at all.
I buy all my food — I wouldn’t know how to grow it or hunt it. Three or four hours’ pay gets me a week’s worth. It’s a pretty good arrangement. I’m thirty years old and I’ve never gone a day without food.
My soreness is actually from my leisure time, not work. I spent yesterday sliding down a snow-covered slope with a board attached to my feet. After that I was pretty worn out, so I went to a friend’s house, drank beer that was wheeled in from Mexico by another person I never met, and watched a sporting event as it unfolded in Philadelphia.
I don’t live in Philadelphia, but my friend has a machine that lets us see what’s happening there. I have one too. Almost everyone does.
The sun won’t rise for another hour, but I don’t need to light a fire or candles. I have artificial ones, mounted on the ceiling. Hit a tiny switch and I can see everything, any time of day.
I bathe while standing. The water comes out whatever temperature I like.
I use a few machines in my kitchen to get my breakfast ready. It takes about five minutes. Toasted buckwheat groats with raisins, almonds, dates and sunflower seeds. I don’t know where it came from but I’d be surprised if it was from anywhere near here.
As I eat, it occurs to me that my co-worker has a machine I might need to use at work today, so I want to make sure he brings it with him. We work about ten miles from my home, and he lives about ten miles from me, but that’s no problem. I’ve got a device that lets him hear my voice from that distance. Wherever he is, I can talk to him.
One minute later I’ve solved that problem, and forgotten about it.
I put my dishes into another machine, which will clean them for me while I’m away at work.
I get dressed and leave. My destination is ten miles in the distance and I’ve got twenty-five minutes, which is plenty of time, because I won’t be walking.
I get into my most expensive machine. It’s actually quite miraculous, but I forget that all the time. It allows me to sit in a comfortable chair, sealed from the elements, while it propels me at incredible speeds.
Just like my home, I can make it any temperature I wish inside. I don’t have to exert any real effort to make the thing go. I use my hands and my toes to control it.
I don’t know quite how it works, but it’s powered by a liquid I can buy pretty much anywhere. For two hours’ pay I can buy enough of it to transport myself hundreds of miles from here. I can transport hundreds of pounds of whatever I want, and even listen to long-dead musicians singing and playing instruments while I do it. I remain sitting comfortably the whole time.
So I hurtle myself to my workplace, which is well beyond the horizon, looking from my house. There, I do what a corporation asks me to, for most of my daylight hours. It’s not that tough really.
I hurtle home in the same manner, without really thinking about it. I make dinner for myself, and eat. Then I turn on one of my favorite machines. It’s about the size of a book.
It has a glowing window inside it. A single page. But I only need one page because its contents change at my command. Sometimes there are words, sometimes photographs, sometimes both. The photographs can move and talk.
The stuff in the book can be written by anyone in the world, even as I’m reading it. There’s more in that book than I could ever read. It provides me with unbelievable advantages. Anything I don’t know, I can find out in a few seconds.
I can get instructions on how to do pretty much anything that has ever been done. I can summon complete histories of almost any person or culture you could name, expert opinions on anything at all, unlimited advice, unlimited entertainment, unlimited information. I can buy pretty much anything from where I’m sitting, and have it brought to my door.
I can even write anything I want and publish it myself. I don’t need permission or credentials. The whole world could read it.
These are true superpowers, only we don’t call them that because they’re completely normal. Almost everyone has access to this kind of power. Yet somehow many people complain of boredom, or of not having enough power.
I know it sounds pretty good. Ease and power are everywhere, for almost everyone. But there are downsides.
Because we’re used to ease, we don’t deal with unease particularly well. We are addicted to machines and the powers they provide. Sometimes it’s hard for people to even have lunch without one of them using a machine to talk to somebody who isn’t at the table.
We’ve lost certain skills because machines and cheap services do things we don’t want to do. Some adults don’t know how to cook anything worthy of serving to someone else. Grown men have childlike handwriting. Almost nobody knows how to wait.
We lose track of what’s right beside us, because we can listen and talk across oceans. Some people are barely there because they’re staring at a machine in their hands while they eat, walk down the street, or even while people are sitting right next to them. Even while they’re hurtling down the highway.
We generally don’t fix machines when they break. We buy new ones and have somebody haul the old one off to be buried in the ground. Nobody knows how to fix them anyway.
Because we acquire new possessions so frequently — often without even realizing it — we don’t treat them very well. It’s normal to have boxes and boxes of tools, supplies and ornaments that we don’t use, and may never be used.
We have so many things that they cease to become things. They become indistinct stuff, and their value and usefulness become lost on us. I often marvel at the thought of the unimaginable value someone two hundred years ago could get out of a random box of somebody’s neglected junk.
We forget that what we have is more than what we need. Obscenely more. I know it may sound perverse, but here in the future people often feel like they need more than they have.
***
The sun went down hours ago, but with my artificial light I haven’t noticed. I’ve been up, writing without a pen. When I’m able to summon the willpower, I close my favorite machine and go to bed.
I’m warm and safe, like every night.