|
|
Due to the comments on my blog post about Divisive Behavior [1] I’ve been considering the issue of terms of abuse of minority groups – a topic of which racial abuse is only one aspect.
It seems that there are many discussions about which terms are offensive and when they are offensive, most of which are very misguided. Solving this problem would be an almost impossible task, but I have some ideas which may help to improve the situation. I would appreciate any pointers to better ideas in comments or in blog posts that are inspired by this one.
One common mistake seems to be the idea that there are global objective criteria by which a statement can be proven to not be offensive. In any language that is constantly evolving (IE any language that’s not dead) this seems impossible. It is particularly difficult with a language like English which is widely used in different countries and cultures. If a member of a minority group claims that you have just offended them then it seems most reasonable to have the default assumption be that you have said or done something which is actually offensive. In such a situation an immediate apology for the misunderstanding should be well accepted, but a debate about who’s cultural standards should be used for determining what is offensive probably won’t get a positive reception.
It seems extremely difficult (if not impossible) for a member of the majority group to properly understand what members of a minority group experience. So therefore attempts to understand why certain terms are offensive are likely to be doomed to failure. Sometimes if a certain word is used and then a group of people immediately get really angry you just have to accept the fact that it’s not a good word to use. One common example of this is words that are associated with violence – if someone associates a particular term with a threat of serious injury or death then you won’t be able to convince them that it’s not a big deal, but there are more subtle things of a similar nature.
It’s worth trying to understand people and these things can be productively discussed between friends. But a discussion of such things is not viable during the course of a debate. If involved in a debate with someone you really dislike it doesn’t seem like a good strategy to start a meta-discussion about whether they should regard one of your statements as being unreasonably offensive (regarding minority group status) as opposed to the level of offense that is acceptable in debate (something like “that’s the most ridiculous argument I’ve ever heard” may offend the recipient but is not inherently unreasonable).
Words tend to have multiple meanings. Claiming that your intent was significantly different from the way your message was interpreted probably isn’t going to work well unless accompanied by an apology. Even “I’m sorry you were offended” (which is not the best apology) will probably do.
Finally I’m sure that anyone who does Google searches dating back to 2005 (as an arbitrary year that references my previous post) can find examples of me doing things that go against some of these suggestions. I’ve learned things since then, it’s an ongoing process.
Past Sins
Sam Varghese wrote an article about Matthew Garrett’s LCA talk “The Linux community: what is it and how to be a part of it” [1]. In page 2 Sam quotes Martin Krafft as asking about how Matthew’s behavior had changed between 2004 and the present, Sam cites some references for Matthew’s actions in 2005 to demonstrate. I think that this raises the issue of how far back it is reasonable to go in search of evidence of past behavior, something that I think is far more important than the specific details of what Matthew said on mailing lists many years ago and whether he now regrets such email.
If someone did something that you consider to be wrong yesterday and did the same thing five years ago you might consider it to be evidence of a pattern of behavior. If someone’s statements today don’t match their actions yesterday then you should consider it to be evidence of hypocrisy. But if someone did something five years ago which doesn’t match their current statements then in many situations it seems more reasonable to consider it as evidence that they have changed their mind.
Then of course there is the significance of what was done. Flaming some people excessively on some mailing lists is something that can be easily forgiven – and forgotten if Google doesn’t keep bringing it up. But as a counter-example I don’t think that Hans Reiser will be welcome in any part of the Linux community when he gets out of jail.
For the development of the Linux community (and society in general) I think it’s best to not tie people to their past minor mistakes. While it is nice when someone apologises for their past actions, the practical benefits of someone just quietly improving their behavior are almost identical. A particular corner case in this regard is the actions of young people, anyone who was born after about 1980 will have had great access to electronic media for their entire life and will have left a trail. Most people do a variety of silly things when they were young, the older members of the Linux community were fortunate enough not to have electronic records remaining where Google could find them.
Back to Matthew, I think that if he is to be criticised about such things then evidence that is much more recent than 2005 needs to be used.
Cultural Differences
Sam quotes Matthew as claiming that “the Linux community was largely a Western, English-speaking one, those who participated in it necessarily had to adapt to the norms of this group“.
I don’t believe that there is a single Linux community. There are a number of different communities that are formed around free software, which have significant amounts of overlap. I don’t believe that there’s any reason why a Chinese or Indian Linux mailing list should conform to the same standards as those of an American list. But there will be a trend towards meme propagation through people who are associated with the Linux communities in multiple countries – every time you meet Linux people in another country you are helping to reduce the cultural differences in the Linux community.
Someone from China or India who joins a LUG in Australia will have to adapt to some of the norms of Australian behavior – in the same way as an Australian who migrates to China or India would have to adapt to some local norms.
On page 4 of the discussion Matthew disagrees with Sam’s interpretation [2], maybe Matthew’s opinions on this matter are closer to mine than the way Sam describes them.
Is Division Inherently Bad?
I believe that the word “divisive” is overused. The only way to avoid division is to have everyone agree with the majority, but sometimes the minority will be right. Note that I am using the word “minority” to refer to any group of people who happen to disagree with the majority, among other things that includes people who vote for a political party that isn’t one of the two biggest ones. An entirely separate issue is that of the treatment of “minority groups“, one of the most divisive events in history was the US civil war – it’s good that slavery is outlawed but unfortunate that a war was required to gain that result.
On page 4 of the discussion Matthew says to Sam “Your writing is influenced by members of the Linux community, and in turn it influences the Linux community. The tone of it is entirely relevant to the behavioural standards of the community” [2]. If a community can be easily divided then the real problem probably isn’t the person who triggered a particular division. Also there is the issue that even if you could get a general agreement that certain issues shouldn’t be discussed in certain ways then with the wide range of cultural attitudes and ages of participants you have to expect someone to raise the issue you don’t want raised. Of course it’s impossible to objectively determine whether a division is productive or not, so it doesn’t seem at all viable to have any expectations regarding outsiders not being divisive. Sometimes you just have to deal with the fact that the Internet contains people who disagree with you.
It seems to me that the most divisive issues we face involve people who mostly agree on contentious issues. If someone entirely disagrees with you then it’s easy to ignore them (if you even have a conversation with them), but if they are someone that you communicate with and they are almost “right” in your opinion then there’s the potential for a big argument.
Probably the best way to minimise division in the community is to have the first people who get involved in a dispute take a Rogerian approach [3]. Failing that a good approach is to respond by writing an essay. When an issue is made popular by services such as Twitter that give little explanation then everyone rushes to the barricades.
It seems to me that the unreliability of some blogging platforms is part of the cause of the problem in this regard. I’ve just given up on writing comments on Blogger, I’m not going to write a good comment only to have it eaten by blogger. There are lots of blogs that have problems which discourage the population from writing anything other than a one-sentence response.
The Good that can come from Disputes
On page 5 of the discussion there is a comment from Anirudh – the Indian student who was criticised by Sam (which ended up inspiring part of Matthew’s talk and leading to more disputes) [4]. Here is the start:
I am the person who wrote the ill thought-out post that drew criticism eight months ago. There has been some discussion about that, so I wish to say something.
I am very grateful to Sam Varghese. I say this with utmost sincerity.
Read the rest, it’s educational. I’m sure that there are others who have had similar learning experiences but who don’t want to write about them. I’m sure that there have been many disputes which would appear to the casual observer to have resulted in no good at all, but which would actually have resulted in people learning things and amending their behavior.
The issue of Age
Car rental companies generally don’t do business with men who are less than 25 years old. Life insurance policies don’t offer reasonable rates to males between the ages of about 16 and 25. This is because the insurance companies have good statistical data on the results of the typical actions of people at various ages and know that young men tend to be at a high risk of earning a Darwin Award. The same combination of hormones and life experience that makes a young man a danger on the road will also tend to make him get involved in flame-wars on the net.
If we could figure out how to influence teenagers into being less anti-social then it would be a great achievement. The current young people will become older and more sensible soon enough but will be replaced by a larger number of young people who will do the same things. As things stand I don’t expect the next cohort of young people to learn from Anirudh.
Martin Krafft advocates a model of Internet access where advertisers pay for the Internet connection [1]. The first problem with this idea is the base cost of providing net access – which in most cases is wires to the premises. Every service that involves a cable to someone’s house (Cable TV, Cable/DSL net access, or phone service) has a base minimum monthly fee associated with the expense of installing and maintaining the cable and whatever hardware is at the other end of the cable. For DSL and basic phone service the pair of wires ends at an exchange and takes a share of the DSLAM or a telephone exchange. It seems that the minimum monthly cost for any wire that goes to the house in Australia is about $20. So if an advertiser makes $0.20 per click (which I believe to be higher than the average price for Google Adsense clicks) then the user would have to be clicking on adverts more than 3 times a day. This might be viable if an ISP runs a proxy that inserts adverts into all content (which technically shouldn’t be that difficult). But modifying content in-transit to introduce adverts is something that the net-discrimination crowd can only dream about.
3G net access has the lowest per-user costs. Based on current data costs it seems possible for an ISP to run a 3G service with bills for users as low as $15 per annum if they don’t transfer much data. Recouping $15 might be easy but it’s also a small enough amount of money that most users won’t mind paying it. What we really need is to have more competition in the 3G ISP business. When I investigated this issue last month I found that there are few 3G Internet providers in Australia and the cheapest is Dodo at $139 per annum with a 15G limit [2]. With a bit more competition I’m sure that someone would offer a really cheap plan for 1G or 2G of data access in a year.
Martin complains about users paying twice as “users pay to access the network (which is like paying a taxi to get to the market), so that they can visit sites where advertisers make money showing ads to the visitor”. But if the advertisers were to pay then there would be a lot of inefficiency in determining how much each advertiser should pay which would result in extra expenses – and therefore providing the service would cost more. I don’t think that paying for a taxi to get to the market is a bad thing, personally I prefer to save money and use a bus or tram. I think that the best analogy for this is comparing using your own choice of a bus, tram, taxi, etc to get to the market or having the market operator provide taxis for everyone and then make everything really expensive to cover the significant costs of doing so.
Finally there is the issue of video transfer which uses up a lot of bandwidth. According to both industry rumor and traceroute there is a significant mirror of youtube content in Australia. This means that youtube downloads will be cheap local transfers not expensive international transfers. I expect that most multi-national CDNs have nodes in Australia. So for Australia at least video transfer would not be as expensive as many people expect.
I think that to a large extent the concept of having content providers pay to host the content has been tried and found to fail. The Internet model of “you pay for your net access, I pay for mine, and then we transfer data between our computers without limit” has killed off all the closed services. Not only do I think that net-discrimination is a bad idea, I think that it would also turn out to be bad for business.
I previously wrote about how the National Broadband Network (NBN) seems more suited to porn delivery than regular Internet use [1]. It doesn’t seem to be of much use really. In a particularly insightful comment John Hughes suggested that the real purpose would be TV delivery.
The ABC is currently delivering 640*360 resolution MPEG4 files via iView for it’s TV content. To use iView on Linux you need Jeremy Visser’s Python-iView program [2] in conjunction with Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton’s rtmp program [3]. Note that to get this working on Debian/Lenny you need to install the python-simplejson package as well. On any version of Debian you need to install the python-beautifulsoup package.
For the current ABC service it requires 251652 of data for a 3167.6 second Torchwood episode, that averages to 79.4KB/s of data. In contrast a video of Dan Gilbert from TED.com at high quality was in 640*480 resolution and required 301652KB of data for 1276.5 seconds which averaged out to 236.3KB/s. My ADSL2+ connection is theoretically capable of something over 1MB/s and occasionally gets such speeds for unusual download situations (such as downloading multiple large files at the same time). But generally I can’t rely can’t rely on sustained transfer rates of more than about 200KB/s. So I could watch streaming TED talks at reasonable quality, but for the best results I have to download them and watch them from disk. Assuming the same ratio of compressed data to raw pixels used for HDTV as used for TED talks a 1920*1080 HDTV resolution MPEG4 with the same quality as a TED talk would take 1600KB/s. It is possible to vary the compression level and possibly the usage of a TV stream would permit better compression than the usage of a TED talk for the number of pixels. But it seems reasonable to assume that something like 1600KB/s is needed for best HDTV, that is more than the vast majority of ADSL2+ installations can be relied on to sustain. But 100Mb/s would allow at least two 1920*1080 HDTV transmissions to be viewed at the same time, and maybe three or four – as few homes have only one TV this should be of great interest.
Now the question is how much people would pay for this. Currently there are two main pay TV companies in Australia, Foxtel which charges $916 for a 12 month plan [4] and Optus who’s web site is so awful that I gave up before discovering what they cost (I will assume that they are competitive with Foxtel). Now I think it’s reasonable to assume that $916 is at the high end of what potential customers are prepared to pay, as they are competing with free to air TV, DVD sales, Youtube, and downloads of pirate content. The current bank interest rate on term deposits from the Commonwealth bank is 6.3%, the interest rate on raising the finance would have to be greater than that – let’s assume 7%. So the $5000 per household will require an interest payment of $350 per annum. If a household signs up to pay TV services at a cost of $1200 per annum that might be enough money to pay slightly more than $350 to the NBN plus make a profit for the pay TV company. So if every household in Australia signed up for pay TV over the NBN it should be profitable. But that seems unlikely.
The majority of the Australian population (IE the majority of the city population) is used to paying not much more than $240 per annum for a basic phone service and not much more than $360 per annum for a basic broadband Internet service. A bundled deal of $1600 per annum for phone, Internet and pay TV should allow the pay TV company and the NBN to be barely profitable if everyone accepts the deal (unless of course interest rates rise). If half the population aren’t interested then the bundled deal would have to cost $2000 to have the potential for being profitable. If three quarters of the population aren’t interested then it would have to cost $2300 or more!
The Australian Bureau of Statistics documents that in 2008 the median household disposable income in capital cities was $593 per week [5]. So it seems that the idea of the NBN being profitable is based on plan to have more than three weeks of household disposable income per year being spent on Internet/phone/TV services.
But fortunately for the pay TV companies and the content companies there is no requirement for the NBN to be profitable, it’s being paid by tax money so if it loses money then we can just pay more tax! It’s the ideal “public private partnership”, the citizens take all the risk and the corporations reap all the profits!
James Purser describes how Stephen Conroy gave the TV networks something between $250,000,000 and $500,000,000 a year for the next two years [6]. It was claimed that this huge gift would be conditional on the production of more Australian content but they ended up not putting any conditions on it. In a strange coincidence Stephen Conroy did this a month after having a meeting with Kerry Stokes (head of Channel 7). Based on this I don’t believe that there was ever a serious plan to make the NBN profitable. I think that the plan was just to take our tax money and spend it on things that benefit friendly corporations. Really it’s better for us if the government just hands out $500,000,000 at a time instead of spending $43,000,000,000 on a project that has the same aim of giving a few hundred million to cronies.
For some time the film industry has been running an anti-piracy campaign with slogans such as “you wouldn’t steal a car” [1] in an attempt to draw a false analogy between downloading a movie and stealing a significant and valuable object – the modern equivalent to being a “horse thief“. One of the many ways that such poor analogies break down is the fact that downloading a movie is not a crime, it’s copyright infringement.
The best analogy that I can think of for non-commercial copyright infringement is the practice of short-changing. I expect that almost everyone has at some time received less change than they deserved when buying something at a shop, the cashier aims to collect $1 or $2 from each customer and can easily double the amount of money that they take home at the end of the day. When a customer complains they just pretend to have made a mistake and although short-changing is a crime (unlike copyright infringement) it almost never results in police action. The practice is tolerated to such a degree that some people know the shops where they are likely to be short-changed, they count their change more carefully and demand the full amount – but don’t bother complaining to the manager!
The film industry also tries to portray itself as representing struggling artists who deserve the money, it’s described as a moral issue – good people pay for movies while bad people download movies and steal cars. But then there’s the case of Roman Polanski who is a well known movie director and child rapist [2]. I expect that most store employees would gladly palm some of the change if Roman Polanski was a customer – that is of course if they weren’t too busy arranging a lynch mob.
So instead of “you wouldn’t steal a car” a more reasonable statement would be “you would short-change a pedophile if you weren’t organising a lynch mob“. Please note that murdering a criminal as part of a lynch mob is a crime (unlike making an unauthorised copy of a DVD), so I encourage people not to perform lynchings.
Many important people in the movie industry have different ideas, the Wall Street Journal has an article about the petition to free Roman Polanski which demonstrates the difference between Hollywood attitudes and those of the rest of the world [3]. For them, violent crime is no big deal if the criminal is famous and the victim isn’t – but anything which affects their own wealth is regarded as a serious issue.
Indiewire has a copy of the petition to free Roman and a list of the names of 100 people who signed it [4] (I heard that the latest count was nearer 150 but couldn’t find a reference). I believe that the matter of morals is not whether someone who rapes children deserves jail time (that issue is really clear) but whether it is morally acceptable to give money to such a criminal – or their supporters. I suggest that the list of signatories to the pro-rape petition be black-listed, any movie that involves any of them should not be paid for – either don’t see the movie or download it without paying at your own whim. If anyone knows of a web site that is being regularly updated with a list of all past and current projects involving people who signed the petition for Roman then please let me know – it would be good to have a list of movies that I will never pay for.
Anyone who feels morally obliged to pay something for a movie and who has a great desire to watch a movie made by Roman Polanski or his supporters could download it and then make a donation to a charity equivalent to the purchase price – rumor has it that women’s refuges are always short of funds.
As an aside I find Wikipedia a good reference for movies that I don’t plan to see, I read the plot summary on the wiki page and then have no curiosity about what happens in the movie – if that isn’t adequate I ask friends for spoilers or do a Google search on the movie name and “spoilers“.
Currently we have a new “National Broadband Network” under construction in Australia [1]. It is going to cost $43,000,000,000 which is $5,000 per household. It is designed to deliver 100Mb/s speeds to most homes – that is the homes that can currently get more than 8Mb/s through ADSL2+ or cable connections.
The question is, what can we do with 100Mb/s that we can’t do with 8Mb/s? It seems that ADSL2+ works pretty well for VOIP, video-conferencing, online games, and transferring CD/DVD images (with a little patience). It seems to me that the only benefit in having download speeds faster than 8Mb/s is for downloading high resolution images and video files in a small amount of time – and porn surfing seems likely to be the only reason for someone being so impatient to get high resolution images!
Now there are some potential technical benefits to this, FTTH will allow synchronous upload and download speeds and being able to transmit data at 100Mb/s will be a significant benefit. If the data transfer quota was reasonable then I could run my blog, my web site (including my Debian package repositories), and some other new projects from a server in my own home. Currently Internet access in Australia sucks – mostly because of the cost of international bandwidth [2]. Also while Telstra was run by the awful Sol Trujillo it was trying to gain a monopoly on domestic services via it’s Fiber To The Node (FTTN) scheme, it seems that one of the biggest benefits of the NBN is to prevent Telstra gaining such a monopoly – but as they are going to pay the NBN CEO a $2,000,000 salary [3] it seems that some of the same mistakes are being made. In any case $43,000,000,000 is a lot of money to pay to break a monopoly, there are much cheaper ways of doing this.
Now if the money was to be spent intelligently on Internet access the first area would have to be submarine cables, if the capacity of the connections between Australia and the rest of the world could be significantly increased then it would change the way the Internet is used. I have a US-based colleague who transfers more data from his mobile phone than I do through my home ADSL connection – and he pays about the same amount of money as me! I think that most serious Internet users would rather have an ADSL2+ connection that is cheaper and has a larger bandwidth quota than a FTTN connection with a high transfer rate but a small quota of data that can be transferred – from what I’ve read about the NBN it doesn’t sound like a service I would want to sign up for. Then there is the issue of servers, currently for most uses Australia is not a viable location for a server due to bandwidth costs. This decreases the job opportunities for Australian system administrators and decreases the Australian IT skills base.
The next area that needs attention is wireless net access. The first issue that should be addressed is the minimum cost, the cheapest net access in Australia is via 3G because it avoids all the costs of wiring [4]. It would be good if instead of paying about $150 per annum for 3G net access there were some options for cheaper plans, maybe $60 per annum for 6G of data. In many ways the current Australian lifestyle requires Internet access, and many aspects of interaction with government organisations requires net access, so it seems that the government should make it a priority to provide cheap net access to the entire population. A 3G net access plan of $60 per annum plus a subsidised purchase plan for cheap PCs (maybe taking a Netbook from $350 to $250) should significantly decrease the number of people who can’t use the Internet.
3G access (both Internet and telephony) also needs to be available in more areas. Currently Telstra has the widest coverage of any mobile phone company, but it uses a non-standard frequency which limits the availability of suitable phones and it doesn’t compete on price [5]. So rural users have to pay through the nose for Telstra mobile telephony and they get a limited choice of phones. It would be really good if we had a NBN for 3G phones that covered the areas surrounding most rural population centers to compete with Telstra. If rural users could pay $60 per annum for 3G Internet access and a reasonable rate for mobile phone access (maybe a combined phone/data plan similar to those offered by Three and Virgin) then it would significantly improve the rural access to services that urban residents take for granted.
The NBN plan does include providing wireless and satellite net access to the 10% of the population who will be out of range of FTTH. But I am concerned that it will provide a bare minimum of service and not an integrated voice/data service that permits using the newest features of phone OSs such as Android. In the past I’ve had some commercial experience with satellite Internet access and I have not been impressed with it, the response times were very poor and fully interactive services were almost unusable. The government should aim to provide support for interactive services that facilitate business operations (including video-conferencing and remote server access via ssh, VNC, etc) to as much of the population as possible. I expect that a significant portion of the Internet using applications on smart-phones such as those running the Android OS will require fast response times, so even if a satellite version of an Android phone is ever produced it still wouldn’t be as useful as the current phones.
Finally the government should offer free wireless net access in all major urban areas for the purpose of accessing government services, Australian content, and Australian mirrors of foreign content. This would be a convenience feature for most people and would also be good for emergency access – I shouldn’t have been denied access to government services when the PSU for my ADSL modem died in the heat last week, I should have been able to take a laptop to the nearest government Wifi access point!
In conclusion I think that the government should spend money on lowering the cost of Internet and mobile telephony access for everyone and granting greater access to government services. I am not aware of any evidence to suggest that the current NBN plan will do anything to achieve such aims. But it should be really good for accessing porn sites that use a CDN with an Australian presence.
Update: John Hughes pointed out in an insightful comment that 100Mb/s can be used for watching TV. So this could be a ploy to try and convert Internet access into better TVs paid for by our tax money!
Popular Mechanics has a good article about 911 [1]. Experts in all the relevant fields were consulted to debunk popular myths. It’s an old article but I hadn’t read it before and learned a lot.
Former CIA analyst Raw McGovern and former FBI attorney/special agent Coleen Rowley, a colleague in Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity wrote an interesting article titled “Why Counter-Terrorism Is in Shambles” [2]. Such sanity from people who are associated with the intelligence industry is unusual.
Gizmodo has an amusing and informative poster about the true risks of airline travel post 911 [3].
Reuters has an interesting article about drug smugglers using Gulfstream and 727 aircraft to smuggle cocaine from South America to Africa [4]. They claim a link to al Quaeda, but such a link seems tenuous from the evidence provided, it does seem reasonable to claim that groups who claim affiliation to al Quaeda are involved in smuggling – anyone can claim anything really.
An 8yo boy is on the TSA terrorism “watch list”, he regularly gets frisked when traveling by air [5]. His mother had a security clearance to fly on Air Force 2 when Al Gore was the Vice President, any sane security system would look at the parents rather than an 8yo child – children of that age aren’t going to independently become terrorists.
The Dallas Observer has an interesting article by Kimberly Thorpe about how to beat debt collectors [6]. Apparently most debt collectors break the law in some way and can be sued for damages – with a typical settlement of $3,500. Some debtors are suing multiple debt collectors, after one debt collector is successfully sued the debt is passed to another collector who also breaks the law. What I really like about this is that the community of people who sue debt collectors keep the industry honest and protect the majority of the population who don’t have the time or interest for engaging in law suits.
Read Write Web has an informative article about SourceForge being forced to deny access to people in Cuba, Iran, North Korea, Sudan and Syria [7]. A problem for free software developers is that we often don’t know the location of the people we collaborate with so it’s best to be as open as possible. This means that the US is not a good place to host servers, probably some part of the EU would be better. Also this sort of thing makes the field of free software development less welcoming to US citizens. Did the congress people learn nothing in high-school? They should know that someone who starts a campaign of ostracism may end up being in the small group.
Google is developing a new Native Client (NaCl) system that seems to be like Microsoft ActiveX [8]. I can’t imagine this doing anything that couldn’t be done with Java, it seems most likely to just marginalise the less popular platforms which isn’t in the best interests of Google.
Kevin Kelly of the Technium wrote an interesting post about 1000 true fans [9]. The concept is that if you are doing creative work you only need 1000 dedicated fans who buy everything you sell to make a living. If you make $20 per year from each of the 1000 fans and you will earn enough to live. Make $100 per year from each of the 1000 fans and you will be earning more money than most people. The updates show that artists who try this aren’t having much success yet, but the Internet population is still increasing dramatically…
PaxStreamline offers an innovation in commercial air-conditioning, apparently a significant amount of electricity is wasted on heating the air after chilling it excessively to remove moisture [10]. So instead of cooling it they use a liquid dessicant to extract the moisture.
Ben Schwartz explains why you should never create files in H.264 or MPEG formats, unless you have a special commercial license then you (and your viewers) will all be liable for patent infringement for any type of commercial use [11]. Note that storing the data on a web site with Google adverts counts as commercial use. I wonder if all those digital cameras and mobile phones that create MPEG videos have appropriate licenses, maybe uploading a file created on your phone breaches the patent.
J. K. Rowling (author of Harry Potter) gave an inspiring speech for Harvard graduates [12]. I particularly liked the following reference to her work for Amnesty International “Choosing to live in narrow spaces leads to a form of mental agoraphobia, and that brings its own terrors. I think the willfully unimaginative see more monsters. They are often more afraid“.
Peter Eigen gave an interesting TED talk about the formation of Transparency International and the economic problems that are caused by corruption [13].
The Monthly Review has an interesting article about the failure of the US justice system [14]. The prison industrial complex has captured part of the US government, neo-liberalism is to blame.
59% of Americans agree that “homosexuals” ought to be able to serve in the U.S. military. But 70 percent believe that “gays and lesbians” ought to be able to serve in the military [15]. Apparently 11% of Americans think that gays and lesbians are better than “homosexuals”.
The Telegraph has a silly article titled “Aliens are likely to look and behave like us” [1]. It’s based on the ideas of Professor Simon Conway Morris [2] who is a big fan of evolutionary convergence. He seems to believe that humans evolved in a way that is close to optimal and that aliens would have to evolve in a similar manner. The article’s claim that aliens will look and behave like us has three flaws, one is assuming that humans are the ideal form for space travel, another is the significant possibilities for vast objective differences between species, and the final one is the human tendency to regard small differences as being really significant.
The Arrogance of Assuming that Humans are Ideal.
It seems extremely arrogant to assume that humans have the ideal form for performing tasks that we have not yet performed – such as traveling to another star system.
To assume that it is certain that humans will colonise the stars is also extremely arrogant and foolish as well, I think that a significant amount of money should be devoted to existential risks that we face. People who believe that humans will inevitably colonise the stars (probably because God told them – there’s no other reason for such certainty) will tend to oppose taking prudent measures to reduce the probability of failure.
We should also consider the possibility that a human society that colonises another star system at some future time might be so different from us that we regard them as alien.
How Might Aliens be Different?
It seems to me that one problem with the theory of convergent evolution (as applied to different planets) is that evolution doesn’t seem to work in big steps. It seems to me that for an increasing portion of the jobs in our technological society there would be a benefit in having four arms and two legs, and maybe having more than four fingers on two of the hands. But evolving a bone structure that makes four arms useful is not a minor tweak so it seems unlikely to happen naturally – we might be able to genetically modify humans to have four arms and two legs with some future technology.
I can’t believe that four limbs is the optimal number for every mammal, amphibian and reptile (apart from the legless ones), that two legs plus two wings is the optimal number for every bird, and that six legs is the optimal number for every insect. I also can’t believe that two arms and two legs is the optimum number for every primate with the only significant difference in limbs being the primates that possess a prehensile tail. Evolution doesn’t produce perfect creatures, what it does is to produce creatures that tend to be slightly fitter than their ancestors. So even if there was an optimal form for a species that develops interstellar-craft, there would be no reason to assume that humans have such a form even if we had developed interstellar travel.
I think it’s relatively safe to assume that aliens would have two eyes (stereoscopic vision is a significant advantage), but apart from that I don’t think we can assume much about their appearance. For example I don’t think that there’s any inherent reason why creatures as intelligent as current humans could not evolve from octopuses – 8 arms would be quite useful for operating machines.
Aliens that spread beyond their own home planet don’t have to be optimal for such tasks, they only need to become the dominant species on their planet, develop decent technology, and then want to leave their planet. A species that took 100,000 years to achieve what humans have achieved in the past 100 years might not be considered optimal – but it might still be able to eventually launch interstellar craft. I don’t think it’s reasonable to assume that aliens would have to be as intelligent as humans to do that. But it does seem most likely that any aliens who manage to get here would be more intelligent than us.
Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond has a really interesting analysis of how human history was determined by geography and the availability of plants and animals suitable for domestication. Part of the explanation for the apparent lack of intelligent aliens could be planets where the dominant species was stuck in a situation like that of the people of New Guinea, the lack of plants and animals suitable for domestication prevented their society from developing. A stone-age human civilisation could potentially be stable for millions of years.
The article says “Extra-terrestrials might not only resemble us but have our foibles, such as greed, violence and a tendency to exploit others’ resources“. Well for starters a species that can displace all other contenders to become the dominant species in their planet would have to be capable of greed and violence. So that is probably correct but is not really going out on a limb.
Physorg.com has a short article describing the benefits of sexual reproduction in terms of the rate of accumulation of harmful mutations [3]. So it seems that sexual reproduction is most likely among intelligent aliens. But I don’t think that there is any reason to assume that aliens couldn’t be hermaphrodites. The Telegraph article claims that “Star Wars and Star Trek could be more accurate than they ever imagined in depicting alien life“, but given that Star Trek has avoided homosexuality even when demanded by the plot it seems that whatever aliens do in the bedroom would be way outside the range of activities alluded to in Star Trek. It seems that almost all sci-fi has aliens that are less “alien” than a significant portion of the human population. I think it’s safe to predict that if we should meet aliens they will not look like humans wearing cheap make-up or rubber suits – that has more to do with the budgets assigned to movie studios than any claim to potential realism.
It seems most likely that a society capable of developing space travel would need a great deal of training for it’s young before they become self-sufficient. Species of animal that abandon their eggs and hope for the best seem unlikely to succeed in doing that. I think that this implies that a pair-bonded species that spends an extended amount of time raising their young is most likely to succeed.
Perceptions of Aliens
Vulcans are widely regarded as being on the Autism spectrum. So it seems that having some similarities in personality to about 1% of the human population is enough to convince most human viewers that the character in question is an alien. A Google search for such things just turns up many references to people on the Autism spectrum who feel like aliens – which incidentally is the source of the alias ETBE [4] that I used for more than 10 years before being diagnosed as an Aspie. Star Trek aliens aren’t actually very alien by human standards!
Given the repeated demonstrations of the general human inability to recognise the psychological similarities in people from different countries or racial/ethnic/religious backgrounds it seems likely that few people would recognise aliens as being at all similar to us. As so many people are unable to recognise the fundamental similarities in people who happen to have a different skin color I can’t imagine many people immediately regarding beings that look like octopuses as having human traits.
Could an eusocial organism (such as bees or ants) develop space travel? It seems to me that most people wouldn’t regard humans who act in a manner that resembles ants (such as the Borg Collective) as being “like us”. The possibility of an eusocial race evolved from humans is explored in Coalescent: A Novel (Destiny’s Children, Bk. 1) by Stephen Baxter (and more briefly in the sequels).
Probability
The universe is a large place. Making a specific prediction about the first alien species that we might encounter might make some sense. But given the potentially billions of species that might be out there we should assume that some of the more improbable forms are represented. Claiming that anything in particular is impossible seems very rash.
Also anyone who makes claims about what evolution “should” do seems to have missed the point. What evolution does is to give rise to species that tend to be a better fit for the environment. Different environments result in different creatures. We can try and predict what creatures might evolve, but we don’t get to say that things “should” happen.
I’ve just bought a Thinkpad T61 at auction for $AU796. My Thinkpad T41p has cooling problems which I have previously described[1]. It’s also started to rattle a bit when I hold it upside down since I took it apart so I guess I didn’t do a great job at trying to fix it (probably the fan is getting obstructed). Now it has developed some screen problems where the screen back-light will periodically turn off and stay off until I press and release the lid-close button (to turn the screen off and on again), this is apparently the symptom of a broken inverter [2]. I was quoted $160 to fix the inverter and $250 to replace the entire screen by laptop.com.au (a very reliable laptop sales and repair company that I’ve dealt with before) [3]. Also the system has the red screen problem where intermittently the screen turns reddish so paying $250 for a replacement screen is worth considering. I decided not to do this as I have seen refurbished Thinkpad T41p systems on sale for about $400 and spending $160 now and possibly $250 later on a $400 system didn’t seem like a good idea. One thing that has annoyed me about my Thinkpad for a long time is the lack of PAE support in the Pentium-M CPU which makes it impossible to run Xen [4], so upgrading to a newer system will allow me to use virtualisation for the purpose of fixing bugs in Debian/Unstable among other things.
As I want a Trackpoint it seems that a Thinkpad is the best option (Thinkpads are also great in many other ways). So really all want is a new Thinkpad with an equal or higher resolution screen, more than 1.5G of RAM (what I’ve currently got) and at least PAE (but ideally hardware virtualisation for KVM) as rumor has it that ACPI doesn’t work well with Xen and also Xen has a history of being a little unreliable at the best of times. I’m after a portable desktop replacement system, so I’m not after an X series or anything else light either.
Even though the new prices on Thinkpads are generally more than I want to pay I first checked the Lenovo web site. It sucks in a magnificent way. First there were some basic site navigation issues, such as the fact that I often can’t click my middle mouse button on a link to open it in a new tab (I get some sort of Javascript error) – it seems that the Lenovo web team didn’t consider the possibility that I might want to have the details of different series of Thinkpad open in different tabs for the purpose of comparison. But the kicker is the fact that most Thinkpads don’t have the screen resolution displayed! It seems to me that one of the most important factors in purchasing a laptop is the screen resolution – and Lenovo generally don’t provide it!
The Ideapad is described as having a resolution of 1024*600 (a netbook not a laptop), the Thinkpad Edge has 1366*768 (not that good), and the R400 and R500 are WXGA which is anything between 1280*720 (sucky) and 1366*768 (slightly less sucky). So it seems that the low end models have technical details which could allow a potential customer to reject them, while the high end models don’t have technical details needed to justify the purchase price! Fortunately a friend who works for IBM was able to find me the necessary information, this site allows you to enter the part number of any Thinkpad and receive a reasonably complete set of specifications (including display resolution) [5]. With the information on that site I was able to successfully bid on the single Thinkpad in a Lenovo auction of refurbished systems that had a resolution that was satisfactory.
The fact that the Lenovo auctions of refurbished systems also lack the details is another think that Lenovo do wrong. In this case I started bidding one minute before the auction closed and had to push the price up by $125 to win it. Given the number of auctions that Lenovo runs world-wide they would probably benefit from fixing their web site just to get the occasional Thinkpad price increased by $125. Not to mention the number of people who are discouraged from buying new Thinkpads because they can’t get information on what they might be paying for.
I don’t think that the answer is “everyone” or even “everyone other than my geeky friends“, but obviously it is a large number of people.
Many people apparently type “facebook” into Google and try to login to the first thing that they see, if it happens to not be Facebook then they whine – this became known after a Google search for “facebook login” happened to not return the Facebook login page as the first link [1]. Â This blog post claims that they are not stupid [2] – the specific claim is that URLs etc are just too complex. Â I disagree, if my mother and my mother-in-law can both do better than that then I think that we should expect that a significant portion of retirees can do so and we should also expect that younger people will do better than older people.
In a more specific sense, when I was in primary school I was taught the Dewey Decimal System aka Dewey Decimal Classification. With the DDC a primary school student can look up the location of a book in the library index system (cardboard files when I was at school) and then know where to find it. After looking up a book on one occasion no-one would want to repeat the effort so the sensible thing to do is to write down the DDC index to any interesting book. The same mental processes can be used for dealing with URLs, someone might find Facebook etc through Google on the first occasion but they can then use browser bookmarks and written notes for traveling to track the URLs that interest them. I think we should expect that a typical adult nowadays should be able to complete any task that would be expected of a 10yo when I was young, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to call an adult stupid if they can’t compare to a 10yo from the early 80’s! As a specific example, while 10yo children were given assignments to look up various books in the DDC I think that an adult can be expected to work out the value of an index on their own – young children should be expected to require a little more training than adults!
Some people will claim that it’s not stupidity but ignorance. What exactly is supposed to have prevented these people from learning? Have the primary school libraries stopped teaching the DDC and most other things related to storing written knowledge? Is there supposed to be such an utter lack of computer skills in the general population that anyone who wants to learn will be unable to do so? I’m sure that there are plenty of retirees who could seek advice from my mother or my mother-in-law if they wanted to learn about such things. NB I’m not making any general comment about gender specific computer skills here, my father and my father-in-law don’t seem to use the Internet much and they aren’t the ones to complain to me when things break – so I can’t assess their skills. I am talking about four individuals and the only generalisation that I am making is that 2/4 retirees I know well seem to have good Internet skills and therefore I expect there to be a reasonable number of retirees who successfully use the Internet.
The Making Light analysis and discussion of the issue has a lot of good points (Making Light does in fact “make light”) [3]. But does have some claims that I find really strange, one example concerns a woman who misunderstood the way the up/down buttons work to call an elevator. Misunderstanding the buttons is one thing, but she also shared her “knowledge” of elevators with others, presumably she had more than a few people try to correct her and she ignored their advice. I think that someone who ignores advice from a variety of people, ignores advice that can easily be tested (just push the elevator buttons and observe what happens), and then goes around sharing their wrong ideas seems to have clearly crossed the line separating cluelessness from stupidity.
One of the Making Light comments references the Clients From Hell blog – a summary of strange, stupid, and amusing requests that clients have made to web design companies [4]. It seems to me that there are two noteworthy categories of anecdote on that site. One is requests that demonstrate ignorance of the work, such as requesting something significant and complex to be done in an hour. The other is requests that demonstrate contempt for the people doing the work, such as offering to pay $10 per hour. Misjudging the time taken to complete work is forgivable – if someone has the skill to accurately estimate the time required then they would be able to do the work and wouldn’t be asking for a quote for someone else to do it. Demonstrating contempt for someone that you are about to hire is stupid no matter how or why it’s done. Clients From Hell also documents people who have requests that are obviously silly, it’s understandable that someone might expect a blurry image to be sharpened as done on “CSI”, but wanting use image editing to reveal the face of a person who was facing away from the camera is simply assigning magical powers to the computer – the fact that this sort of thing is done in shows such as Star Trek says a lot about the shows in question and their viewers.
Often car metaphors are used for computers, you can be a good driver without knowing the details of how a car works – but you do have to know how the pedals, switches, and steering wheel work as well as the meanings of the various dials. You can be competent at using the Internet without knowing much about bits, bytes, assembler code, or how a CPU works – but you do need to know how the controls work and this means knowing how to type a URL.
The basic operations of browsing the web require considerably less skill than driving a car and less skill than is commonly used in operating the telephone system (including PABX systems, mobile phones, and international calls). Anyone who is unable (not unwilling) to drive a car or make any phone call other than a local direct call and yet is reasonably intelligent could be used as an example of how an intelligent person could be unable to understand some aspects of technology, I don’t think that there are many people in that situation – it’s difficult to find an adult in Australia who can’t drive a car.
Finally while it’s reasonable to be uninterested in some things, it’s not reasonable to be interested in doing something without wanting to learn how to do it properly. If typing “facebook.com” is so difficult that it exceeds someone’s level of interest in the service then they shouldn’t complain if they find that they can’t access the service. Really typing “facebook.com” into the address bar of a web browser is easier than starting the engine of a car with a manual transmission, it’s easier than filling the fuel tank of a car with the correct fuel, or figuring out when a car is due for service.
Now there are serious security issues revealed by this event. I’m sure that lots of people use similar methods to access their online banking etc. I just did a quick Google search for online banking with Australian banks, and I noticed that a few of the search results have adverts from rival banks. So it seems quite plausible that someone could trick Google into thinking that they run a bank (there are many thousands of banks in the world), run adverts competing against established banks, and phish the people who click on them.
I wonder whether the best solution would be for the banks to test the security of their customers. Then any customer who gets phished by the bank’s anti-fraud division would receive increased bank fees for the next few years and the rest of us who are less risk to the bank could receive lower fees. The current situation seems to be that my bank fees are partly determined by the need to recoup the money that the bank loses from customers who just use Google to find their bank’s web site. I would rather not pay for the stupidity of such people.
In the end all security comes down to people issues, technology just helps people do the right thing. I believe that one of the groups of stupid people on the Internet are those who believe that the Internet should be made safe for people who want to know nothing about it – not even the basic library skills that are taught to primary school students.
|
|
