(only Christmassy in that it relates to religion and the buying season)
I would like to see the inventor of the DVD region code spend a long painful eternity being tortured in the most gruesome ways possible.
Friday, December 14, 2007
Global warming update...
For those who thought my recent global warming post might be a bit on the pessimistic side, there comes a new model (which the creator already suggests is overly optimistic as it doesn't consider 2005 or 2007, the two worst years on record). Basically, his model predicts no more summer arctic ice cap by 2013. So, as I said in the other post, by the time the governments make their decisions we will already have surfers in the arctic circle, and battles over shipping and oil drilling rights will be well and truly joined. Well, people are already surfing the wakes from melting icebergs, so I guess moving to the poles isn't too much of a stretch really.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
Christmas Thought #1
How can Jesus be a descendant of David if Mary was a virgin?
(remember, it was Joseph, not Mary who was in the line of David)
(remember, it was Joseph, not Mary who was in the line of David)
Monday, December 10, 2007
Global warming is here to stay... ID #554435
...so you'd better get used to it. I had this revelation recently, during my travel to/from England and my stay in a Newcastle student residence. But let me backpedal for a moment.
Until recently, I was of the belief that global warming had to be fought as best we could, being conscientious to reduce emissions by taking transit and conserving electricity. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm still convinced, as are 99% of climate scientists, that global warming is happening and that it is the fault of humanity--the evidence is too strong to believe otherwise.
No, my recent change of heart has nothing to do with the imminent climate changes that are and will continue to assail us. Rather, it stems from a recent understanding of humanity. Simply put, while global warming is happening and the majority agree it is a bad thing, no one is willing to do anything about it, no one is even willing to turn of those lights, or the TV or to use their car less, try taking transit or walk that block to the corner store for their bag of jumbo crunchy crisps. And if no one cares at the level of the individual, why should anyone hurry to do anything at the level of governments? In fact, the last I've heard is that concerned countries have agreed to agree to...something...by 2012. That's four years away, for those who are counting.
So? you say, That should be enough time, no? Well, not to burst your Hollywood watching, last-second-save expecting hieny but, probably no. This is the real world, not Star Trek, McGyver or the A-Team. We're not going to reverse decades of neglect overnight. Especially considering that, not only will that neglect continue until the government decisions (at the least), but that neglect is, in fact, increasing daily in scope and in the damage it causes.
I used to get very frustrated at the lack of concern, the apathy or the intentional ignorance of many people. But now that, as far as I believe, we are past the point of no return, I feel a lightness of being. Like a weight has been lifted from my shoulders. There's no reason to worry now, the future is decided. Sure there will be many hardships ahead from rampant destruction by tropical storms to ocean wildlife being threatened and, in turn, threatening humanity as their habitats and food supplies shift or are destroyed, to vast flooding and forest fires. But it doesn't bother me anymore because humanity has made its choice and now we have to live with it.
Which reminds me, I'm moving to England soon and, based on recent flooding and flood scares, I have a feeling in a decade or so, much of central England will be underwater. Perhaps I should start building my ferry company for the United Kingdom Archipelago (seriously, I'm going to take a look at some contour maps of the UK and try and work out my own projection. If I can find the info I need, check back to see the results). Better yet, maybe I'll just move back to Canada. As far as I can see that is one of the only western countries that won't be significantly affected by either flooding or bad weather. If Toronto or Montreal goes under water, we can just move everyone to the prairie provinces, there's lots of room there.
Until recently, I was of the belief that global warming had to be fought as best we could, being conscientious to reduce emissions by taking transit and conserving electricity. Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm still convinced, as are 99% of climate scientists, that global warming is happening and that it is the fault of humanity--the evidence is too strong to believe otherwise.
No, my recent change of heart has nothing to do with the imminent climate changes that are and will continue to assail us. Rather, it stems from a recent understanding of humanity. Simply put, while global warming is happening and the majority agree it is a bad thing, no one is willing to do anything about it, no one is even willing to turn of those lights, or the TV or to use their car less, try taking transit or walk that block to the corner store for their bag of jumbo crunchy crisps. And if no one cares at the level of the individual, why should anyone hurry to do anything at the level of governments? In fact, the last I've heard is that concerned countries have agreed to agree to...something...by 2012. That's four years away, for those who are counting.
So? you say, That should be enough time, no? Well, not to burst your Hollywood watching, last-second-save expecting hieny but, probably no. This is the real world, not Star Trek, McGyver or the A-Team. We're not going to reverse decades of neglect overnight. Especially considering that, not only will that neglect continue until the government decisions (at the least), but that neglect is, in fact, increasing daily in scope and in the damage it causes.
I used to get very frustrated at the lack of concern, the apathy or the intentional ignorance of many people. But now that, as far as I believe, we are past the point of no return, I feel a lightness of being. Like a weight has been lifted from my shoulders. There's no reason to worry now, the future is decided. Sure there will be many hardships ahead from rampant destruction by tropical storms to ocean wildlife being threatened and, in turn, threatening humanity as their habitats and food supplies shift or are destroyed, to vast flooding and forest fires. But it doesn't bother me anymore because humanity has made its choice and now we have to live with it.
Which reminds me, I'm moving to England soon and, based on recent flooding and flood scares, I have a feeling in a decade or so, much of central England will be underwater. Perhaps I should start building my ferry company for the United Kingdom Archipelago (seriously, I'm going to take a look at some contour maps of the UK and try and work out my own projection. If I can find the info I need, check back to see the results). Better yet, maybe I'll just move back to Canada. As far as I can see that is one of the only western countries that won't be significantly affected by either flooding or bad weather. If Toronto or Montreal goes under water, we can just move everyone to the prairie provinces, there's lots of room there.
Monday, October 15, 2007
Things to be thankful the gov hasn't thought of
Regarding potential bomb threats--things to be thankful the government hasn't thought of yet (because if they did, air travel would even less enjoyable and more restrictive):
1) that people might hide hazardous materials in their underwear
2) that plastiqus could be molded into the shape of dentures. The fuse could be disguised as floss.
3) that a few tubes of toothpaste would likely hold enough c4 to blow out the side of an airplane.
4) that 100mL of a ricin solution, looking like water, would be enough, if properly distributed, to kill an entire planeful of people.
5) that x-rays are high energy electromagnetic radiation and thus could probably, with some research, be used to trigger explosives in carry-on luggage--why blow up the plane when you can take apart the airport with almost as many people clustered in the same area?
6) that shoe laces can be deadly weapons
7) that a toothbrush with a sharpened handle could be as deadly in stabbing as a knife.
8) or a pen/pencil
9) that not all solid explosives are x-ray dense or require a fuse
Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't have written this blog, I'm starting to scare myself. Surely, if the government thought of even some of the things mentioned above, they would ban public air travel altogether.
1) that people might hide hazardous materials in their underwear
2) that plastiqus could be molded into the shape of dentures. The fuse could be disguised as floss.
3) that a few tubes of toothpaste would likely hold enough c4 to blow out the side of an airplane.
4) that 100mL of a ricin solution, looking like water, would be enough, if properly distributed, to kill an entire planeful of people.
5) that x-rays are high energy electromagnetic radiation and thus could probably, with some research, be used to trigger explosives in carry-on luggage--why blow up the plane when you can take apart the airport with almost as many people clustered in the same area?
6) that shoe laces can be deadly weapons
7) that a toothbrush with a sharpened handle could be as deadly in stabbing as a knife.
8) or a pen/pencil
9) that not all solid explosives are x-ray dense or require a fuse
Hmmm, maybe I shouldn't have written this blog, I'm starting to scare myself. Surely, if the government thought of even some of the things mentioned above, they would ban public air travel altogether.
What's with strict weight restrictions on airplanes?
Okay, we all know the short answer to this one...money! If you're over, the airline gets to charge you huge and very unreasonable handling fees. So why does no one complain? Europe is getting horrible for this. My last trip to England saw a strict adherence to 10kg carry-on. Even 1kg over and it was 'sorry, you must check that bag or empty it some.' What's the deal with that? I mean, I realize there has to be some weight restrictions for the sake of the airplane capacity and fuel costs etc, but such a strict adherence is completely unreasonable--the individual weights of people vary by more than that.
Think of this: if 50kg Slim Jim gets aboard with his 11kg bag and is forced to check it, while 120kg Big Bob is fine with his 9kg carry-on !? Now, not only is the total weight of Jim+carry-on far less than Bob but, if they are both packing only clothes and personal items for the same length trip then Bob's checked baggage will quite likely be heavier than Jim's also because all his clothes will be larger. So I repeat....where's the common sense?
Perhaps you're willing to argue that they have to be strict because they consider the average passenger weight, which may not change from trip to trip. Even still, I don't believe 1kg here or there will matter much, and will probably even out in the end also. Not only that but, if they are calculating for the average weight that bodes bad for somebody because in the west, the average passenger weight is going up. So either they are going to be spending more money than they calculated for fuel, or they will be cutting our luggage weight allowances even further. Regardless, somehow you know it's always us, the passengers, who are going to pay.
Think of this: if 50kg Slim Jim gets aboard with his 11kg bag and is forced to check it, while 120kg Big Bob is fine with his 9kg carry-on !? Now, not only is the total weight of Jim+carry-on far less than Bob but, if they are both packing only clothes and personal items for the same length trip then Bob's checked baggage will quite likely be heavier than Jim's also because all his clothes will be larger. So I repeat....where's the common sense?
Perhaps you're willing to argue that they have to be strict because they consider the average passenger weight, which may not change from trip to trip. Even still, I don't believe 1kg here or there will matter much, and will probably even out in the end also. Not only that but, if they are calculating for the average weight that bodes bad for somebody because in the west, the average passenger weight is going up. So either they are going to be spending more money than they calculated for fuel, or they will be cutting our luggage weight allowances even further. Regardless, somehow you know it's always us, the passengers, who are going to pay.
Those airline baggies revisited
A funny thought occured to me recently. Next time I travel I'll have to check it out to see if I'm right (and if so, the reaction). As I remember it, from my last flight (less than a week ago) the baggies are restricted as follows: they are limited in size to about 10 or 15 cm a side and to containing no more than 1 L. You can also not have bottle any larger than 100 mL. The amount of liquid in the bottle doesn't matter, only the bottle size -- as I witnessed as the woman in front of me had to throw out 50 mL of contact cleaner because it was in a 250 mL bottle. Incidentally, it doesn't actually matter if the bag can seal as long as it is of the type that should be able to. This was my own personal experience as my resealable bag had a very well-used sticky strip that was no longer very sticky. In fact, the bottles kept falling out of the bag while I was in line. But no one in security cared about that.
Anyway, the funny thing I thought of was this: I don't recall seeing anywhere a statement to the effect that the liquid must actually be in the bottles. Only that you can only have 1L total and no larger than 100mL bottles. I'm seriously tempted to check this out next time and if I'm right I might do the following...bring into the line a bag with several 100mL bottles inside--> and carry a 500mL water bottle. When they stop me, insisting I leave the water bottle, instead, I empty it into the bag and seal the bag. Thus obeying the letter of the law, if not the intent.
Failing that, it might be interesting to bring a 500 mL bottle of frozen water through security, arguing that it's not liquid and so should be except from the restrictions (of course, all they have to do is delay me long enough and it would be liquid). Hmm, I could be taking a long time to go through security the next time--even longer than on my last trip (45 minutes needlessly repacking my carry-on before we even got to the x-ray).
Anyway, the funny thing I thought of was this: I don't recall seeing anywhere a statement to the effect that the liquid must actually be in the bottles. Only that you can only have 1L total and no larger than 100mL bottles. I'm seriously tempted to check this out next time and if I'm right I might do the following...bring into the line a bag with several 100mL bottles inside--> and carry a 500mL water bottle. When they stop me, insisting I leave the water bottle, instead, I empty it into the bag and seal the bag. Thus obeying the letter of the law, if not the intent.
Failing that, it might be interesting to bring a 500 mL bottle of frozen water through security, arguing that it's not liquid and so should be except from the restrictions (of course, all they have to do is delay me long enough and it would be liquid). Hmm, I could be taking a long time to go through security the next time--even longer than on my last trip (45 minutes needlessly repacking my carry-on before we even got to the x-ray).
Funny thought of the day
Imagine what we'd have to go through at airport security if they ever found someone trying to smuggle explosives aboard in their underwear!
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Marion Jones, regret over....being caught.
Yeah, this type of story never fails to make me madder than....well...almost as mad as I get when thinking about the RIAA lawsuits. Yet another track athlete, sprinter, has admitted using, and lying about using, steroids. Big freakin' surprise. It's not even surprising that she blames her coach or that the period she admits to using is...you guessed it...exactly AFTER her 5 medal win at the Olympics.
Oh no, your honor, I never used them before I won my 5 medals. That was all my own skill.
Sure. So, what happened, you got worse after using them?
But really, does anyone find this the least bit surprising anymore? I saw one quote on a talk-back page suggesting that for every 1 track athlete caught using steroids, 5 go undetected. At least in the 100m sprint I feel that statement is hopelessly naive. Personally, if there are any Olympic finalists of the 100m sprint that aren't using steroids I'd be incredibly surprised.
Take the men's 100m world records: almost for every sub-9.85 record that stands, there is another that has been disallowed because of steroid use ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Record_progression_100_m_men ). This stretches back to the days of the now infamous Ben Johnson. Furthermore, if you graph this data, you see a smooth trend (allowing for the outlier of 1956 that was probably delayed due to WWII) showing that the times were decreasing but were reaching an asymptote of about 9.9s (suggesting this to be the maximum possible for unaided humans)--from about 1968 through to the mid 80's the rate of decrease had almost flattened.
Enter improved synthetic chemistry and big money. Since the mid 80's the downward trend reasserted itself. In other fields, such a break in the trend is considered a 'paradigm shift'. It happens, for example, when studying the develop of computer technology every time a fundamentally new technology is developed. And what it suggests is that something fundamental happened to the sport in the 80's. My guess: steroids.
So, the only surprise in this recent bout of discoveries is that the athletes are American. What I mean is, those of us non-American have long believed the top US track athletes were using steroids, however, the surprise is that they were finally caught. Not that the US Olympic system wanted to catch them, the signs have been there for a long time. No, they were caught from the inside with the anonymous release of information on the production of designer steroids at a San Francisco lab a few years ago. The US sport organizations had no option. To save face, they had to sacrifice the scapegoats.
Your mission, should you accept, is to bring glory to your country by winning the Olympics any way you can. Should you be caught using illicit substances, we will disavow any knowledge of it.
Anyway, in a sport like the 100m, I truly believe no modern champion is drug free. It's no longer possible. Steroids give such an edge to competitors in certain events that one must use them to compete at the world-class level. And the chemists will always be ahead of the detection methods (hey, chemists/biochemists make the detection methods).
So you know what I'd like to see? A steroid Olympics. Let's see what the human body is truly capable of when boosted to the maximum. What's that, you say, it would send a negative and dangerous signal to the young, hopeful athletes. How so? It would be the most honest Olympics since they were held in ancient Greece (maybe even more so). And besides, the drug-warped bodies of retired champions would serve as a very obvious sign to new athletes of the consequences of the path they were taking. And if steroids are invented that don't cause bodily harm? Then I say, bring on the 8 second 100m sprint!
Oh no, your honor, I never used them before I won my 5 medals. That was all my own skill.
Sure. So, what happened, you got worse after using them?
But really, does anyone find this the least bit surprising anymore? I saw one quote on a talk-back page suggesting that for every 1 track athlete caught using steroids, 5 go undetected. At least in the 100m sprint I feel that statement is hopelessly naive. Personally, if there are any Olympic finalists of the 100m sprint that aren't using steroids I'd be incredibly surprised.
Take the men's 100m world records: almost for every sub-9.85 record that stands, there is another that has been disallowed because of steroid use ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Record_progression_100_m_men ). This stretches back to the days of the now infamous Ben Johnson. Furthermore, if you graph this data, you see a smooth trend (allowing for the outlier of 1956 that was probably delayed due to WWII) showing that the times were decreasing but were reaching an asymptote of about 9.9s (suggesting this to be the maximum possible for unaided humans)--from about 1968 through to the mid 80's the rate of decrease had almost flattened.
Enter improved synthetic chemistry and big money. Since the mid 80's the downward trend reasserted itself. In other fields, such a break in the trend is considered a 'paradigm shift'. It happens, for example, when studying the develop of computer technology every time a fundamentally new technology is developed. And what it suggests is that something fundamental happened to the sport in the 80's. My guess: steroids.
So, the only surprise in this recent bout of discoveries is that the athletes are American. What I mean is, those of us non-American have long believed the top US track athletes were using steroids, however, the surprise is that they were finally caught. Not that the US Olympic system wanted to catch them, the signs have been there for a long time. No, they were caught from the inside with the anonymous release of information on the production of designer steroids at a San Francisco lab a few years ago. The US sport organizations had no option. To save face, they had to sacrifice the scapegoats.
Your mission, should you accept, is to bring glory to your country by winning the Olympics any way you can. Should you be caught using illicit substances, we will disavow any knowledge of it.
Anyway, in a sport like the 100m, I truly believe no modern champion is drug free. It's no longer possible. Steroids give such an edge to competitors in certain events that one must use them to compete at the world-class level. And the chemists will always be ahead of the detection methods (hey, chemists/biochemists make the detection methods).
So you know what I'd like to see? A steroid Olympics. Let's see what the human body is truly capable of when boosted to the maximum. What's that, you say, it would send a negative and dangerous signal to the young, hopeful athletes. How so? It would be the most honest Olympics since they were held in ancient Greece (maybe even more so). And besides, the drug-warped bodies of retired champions would serve as a very obvious sign to new athletes of the consequences of the path they were taking. And if steroids are invented that don't cause bodily harm? Then I say, bring on the 8 second 100m sprint!
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Grapes, the terrorist's play toy
If you've read my last post, you realize I think a lot about the futility of our draconian measures to protect against terrorist attacks.
Here is another reason (and another reason to be thankful that most terrorists are not very well read).
Microwave ovens.
What? You say.
No, I haven't flipped my lid. I was reminded of this again when, last night, my wife almost blew up the microwave by putting an aluminum dish inside (she didn't grow up with microwaves so she can be forgiven). This also brings to mind the movie Grosse Point Blank where a hitman used a 7-11 microwave to activate an explosive, destroying the building.
Okay, simultaneously I'm not going that far, but maybe even further. In a leap of credibility I'm going to introduce you to...*drum roll please*...grapes.
I know what you're thinking. 'He's really flipped his lid this time.' But bare with me a moment. This is all real.
Grapes. The great scourge of the microwave. In a strange quirk of nature, a pair of grapes, closely spaced in an active microwave will ignite. This seems to be a fairly recent discovery and the reason is still not fully understood. I've read mumbo-jumbo about grapes channeling the microwave field lines, but I think the answer may be something to do with the activation of the tartaric acid they contain, and subsequent oxidation of their glucose (akin to the burning of donuts with sulfuric acid). Anyway, the why is not important for this discussion. The fact that they ignite in a microwave is.
Why?
Image what you could do, as a mischievous school kid, or a terrorist, with a completely natural igniter. Again, I'm trained in biochemistry, not chemistry so I haven't looked at the chemistry too much, but imagine combining the grapes with flammable/explosive household products (such as cleaning agents). Pop a bowl of explosive liquid in the microwave until the vapors saturate the small space, put in your pair of grapes, turn on the zapper and ....instant kablooie [please don't try this at home - if it works, I'd rather not be sued].
Now, I don't know if that particular combination would work but my point is, that with some research I'm sure something could be found, maybe even more natural than in my example above. Consider how easy it would be to wreak havoc as a terrorist with a completely natural explosive - microwaves are everywhere these days: convenience stores, lunch rooms, display models in stores, airplanes...
What's that in your luggage, sir?
This? Just my lunch, see? *munch* *munch*
I can already hear the tiny wheels churning in the minds of homeland security. George, we have to ban microwaves! Oh, and grapes, while we're at it.
EH Rydberg
Here is another reason (and another reason to be thankful that most terrorists are not very well read).
Microwave ovens.
What? You say.
No, I haven't flipped my lid. I was reminded of this again when, last night, my wife almost blew up the microwave by putting an aluminum dish inside (she didn't grow up with microwaves so she can be forgiven). This also brings to mind the movie Grosse Point Blank where a hitman used a 7-11 microwave to activate an explosive, destroying the building.
Okay, simultaneously I'm not going that far, but maybe even further. In a leap of credibility I'm going to introduce you to...*drum roll please*...grapes.
I know what you're thinking. 'He's really flipped his lid this time.' But bare with me a moment. This is all real.
Grapes. The great scourge of the microwave. In a strange quirk of nature, a pair of grapes, closely spaced in an active microwave will ignite. This seems to be a fairly recent discovery and the reason is still not fully understood. I've read mumbo-jumbo about grapes channeling the microwave field lines, but I think the answer may be something to do with the activation of the tartaric acid they contain, and subsequent oxidation of their glucose (akin to the burning of donuts with sulfuric acid). Anyway, the why is not important for this discussion. The fact that they ignite in a microwave is.
Why?
Image what you could do, as a mischievous school kid, or a terrorist, with a completely natural igniter. Again, I'm trained in biochemistry, not chemistry so I haven't looked at the chemistry too much, but imagine combining the grapes with flammable/explosive household products (such as cleaning agents). Pop a bowl of explosive liquid in the microwave until the vapors saturate the small space, put in your pair of grapes, turn on the zapper and ....instant kablooie [please don't try this at home - if it works, I'd rather not be sued].
Now, I don't know if that particular combination would work but my point is, that with some research I'm sure something could be found, maybe even more natural than in my example above. Consider how easy it would be to wreak havoc as a terrorist with a completely natural explosive - microwaves are everywhere these days: convenience stores, lunch rooms, display models in stores, airplanes...
What's that in your luggage, sir?
This? Just my lunch, see? *munch* *munch*
I can already hear the tiny wheels churning in the minds of homeland security. George, we have to ban microwaves! Oh, and grapes, while we're at it.
EH Rydberg
What's up with those little airline bags?
Okay, this is something I've been meaning to get off my chest for some time. Finally, I figured I'd put it here.
Just what is up with those little airline baggies? I mean, what are they really for? Has anyone thought about it?
We're told, we can carry one sealable bag in our carry-on luggage. In this bag we can put any liquids we have that are 200 mL or less. There is no limit on the number of 200 mL bottles, so long as they fit in the bag.
Doesn't this seem...well, dangerous, to anyone else? I mean, technicaly I can stuff the bag full of 200 mL bottles--and I've seen bags that will easily hold liters. Not only that, but they force you to put them in a nice, closed bag to hold all the contents together. Are you seeing where I'm going with this? Let me explain.
If you put a half-dozen 200mL bottles in your carry-on, but not in the bag, and then they leak--what happens? They drip all over your bag, soak into the material and any clothes you have and otherwise get diluted and absorbed.
Now, if you have a half-dozen of the same bottles all stored together in a nicely closed, plastic bag, what happens if they leak? All the liquid is runs into the bag where it protects your stuff by being held, safely mixing with all the other liquids that have leaked.
Now, say those liquids are components of an explosive....well, now you see where I'm going. Instead of the leaked liquids being diluted and absorbed by the material, they are contained in a small area and thoroughly mixed with each other. The result would be a much greater explosion than if there was no bag because the explosives are concentrated and well mixed. So, in effect, the airlines are insisting we use something that would actually make the terrorists more effective.
'Surely one would need more explosive than that?' I hear you say. Well, to be honest, I don't know enough about explosives to answer you definitively, but this is where lateral thinking comes in. One doesn't have to blow-up the entire plane to cause serious damage. I'm pretty sure it doesn't take too much to blow a hole in the side of the plane, depressurizing it. Probably even household explosives could do that. Nitrogen tri-iodide, for example, can be easily made in the home. It's inert when in a saturated paste (as if suspended in water-say, stored in a 200mL bottle), but very unstable when dried. There's a good chance that a kilogram of it (the amount you could easily smuggle on board in a series of small 200mL bottles), placed in the right location could do some serious damage.
So what? you say. It could be smuggled on without the baggies also. Precisely! As I see it, those little baggies do nothing to protect from any real danger and only increase the dangers they are supposed to protect against while simultaneously inconveniencing travelers.
Oh, and in case you are under the delusion that airport security is infalible, I've seen reporters break the system in some airports (Rome for example) where they recently were able to smuggle knives, flammables, and litres of liquid onto international flights. All they did was book a short, national flight that connected with an international flight. They stowed all the forbidden material (1.5L bottle of water, scissors and knives with 6-inch blades and numerous other things) in a carry on-sized suitcase which they checked for the first flight. Upon arriving, they picked up their bag from the carousel and exited a 'no access' short-cut to the departure wing. A short time later, they were flying high with a suitcase full of 'dangerous' material, which they demonstrated in the airplane bathroom before showing the stewards.
True, this may not be possible in every, or even most airports in the world. But the fact that it is possible in even one major international airport in the west does give one pause to think. Just how safe do the new safety measure really make us and, if someone wants to kill you badly enough, they will find a way, regardless of whether your government has inconvenienced the entire rest of the world to try and stop them.
If you worry about such things, then be thankful not for the Orwellian-style security measures imposed by our governments, but rather for the fact that the vast majority of terrorists are stupid and very few terrorist attacks (such as those recently in the UK) have been successful. Because, if the terrorists were more intelligent, we'd probably be dead already, regardless of what GW or any other world leader would have you believe.
EH Rydberg
Just what is up with those little airline baggies? I mean, what are they really for? Has anyone thought about it?
We're told, we can carry one sealable bag in our carry-on luggage. In this bag we can put any liquids we have that are 200 mL or less. There is no limit on the number of 200 mL bottles, so long as they fit in the bag.
Doesn't this seem...well, dangerous, to anyone else? I mean, technicaly I can stuff the bag full of 200 mL bottles--and I've seen bags that will easily hold liters. Not only that, but they force you to put them in a nice, closed bag to hold all the contents together. Are you seeing where I'm going with this? Let me explain.
If you put a half-dozen 200mL bottles in your carry-on, but not in the bag, and then they leak--what happens? They drip all over your bag, soak into the material and any clothes you have and otherwise get diluted and absorbed.
Now, if you have a half-dozen of the same bottles all stored together in a nicely closed, plastic bag, what happens if they leak? All the liquid is runs into the bag where it protects your stuff by being held, safely mixing with all the other liquids that have leaked.
Now, say those liquids are components of an explosive....well, now you see where I'm going. Instead of the leaked liquids being diluted and absorbed by the material, they are contained in a small area and thoroughly mixed with each other. The result would be a much greater explosion than if there was no bag because the explosives are concentrated and well mixed. So, in effect, the airlines are insisting we use something that would actually make the terrorists more effective.
'Surely one would need more explosive than that?' I hear you say. Well, to be honest, I don't know enough about explosives to answer you definitively, but this is where lateral thinking comes in. One doesn't have to blow-up the entire plane to cause serious damage. I'm pretty sure it doesn't take too much to blow a hole in the side of the plane, depressurizing it. Probably even household explosives could do that. Nitrogen tri-iodide, for example, can be easily made in the home. It's inert when in a saturated paste (as if suspended in water-say, stored in a 200mL bottle), but very unstable when dried. There's a good chance that a kilogram of it (the amount you could easily smuggle on board in a series of small 200mL bottles), placed in the right location could do some serious damage.
So what? you say. It could be smuggled on without the baggies also. Precisely! As I see it, those little baggies do nothing to protect from any real danger and only increase the dangers they are supposed to protect against while simultaneously inconveniencing travelers.
Oh, and in case you are under the delusion that airport security is infalible, I've seen reporters break the system in some airports (Rome for example) where they recently were able to smuggle knives, flammables, and litres of liquid onto international flights. All they did was book a short, national flight that connected with an international flight. They stowed all the forbidden material (1.5L bottle of water, scissors and knives with 6-inch blades and numerous other things) in a carry on-sized suitcase which they checked for the first flight. Upon arriving, they picked up their bag from the carousel and exited a 'no access' short-cut to the departure wing. A short time later, they were flying high with a suitcase full of 'dangerous' material, which they demonstrated in the airplane bathroom before showing the stewards.
True, this may not be possible in every, or even most airports in the world. But the fact that it is possible in even one major international airport in the west does give one pause to think. Just how safe do the new safety measure really make us and, if someone wants to kill you badly enough, they will find a way, regardless of whether your government has inconvenienced the entire rest of the world to try and stop them.
If you worry about such things, then be thankful not for the Orwellian-style security measures imposed by our governments, but rather for the fact that the vast majority of terrorists are stupid and very few terrorist attacks (such as those recently in the UK) have been successful. Because, if the terrorists were more intelligent, we'd probably be dead already, regardless of what GW or any other world leader would have you believe.
EH Rydberg
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
What will they do when...?
Well, I'm off for vacation in a few days, and that means a plane trip. Of course, that has me thinking about some of the craziness in airport security, things that can and cannot be brought with you. X-rays, metal detectors and poorly trained, apathetic baggage handlers who view their job as somewhat akin to a supermarket.
I've been especially thinking about the crazy ideas the governments come up with regarding bombs--and the fuss that the liquid bombs are causing. Because of the small possibility of a terrorist bringing a liquid bomb on the plane (something that never happened and, given the success rate of many of the terrorist bombs, probably wouldn't work anyway) every single person flying in the world now has to suffer the current craziness. They're trying to convince me that they can detect the residue from a bomb that I may have been near by swabbing my suitcase, but I would have to drink a bottle of anything I bring for them to be sure it isn't an explosive?! Yeah. Sure.
So, what really gets me is this. What happens when the governments finally realize that people themselves could be the bombs? What's to stop a terrorist from surgically implanting small powerful explosives under their skin? Perhaps triggerable by cell phone? Or even tubings that carry the binary liquids that only need to have a membrane broken to trigger the explosion?
Such a realization, I fear, would send shockwaves throughout the western world the likes of which we've never seen. Would governments insist that each person be thoroughly x-rayed? Frequent flyers would then be at a serious risk of radiation poisoning. Perhaps companies would then hire a special class of short-lived, high-rish business exec. Or maybe work would start on incorporating radiation resistant genes into humans so we could be thoroughly x-rayed each time we flew. Another possibility would be chips implanted beneath our skin. They would regularly scan for such unwanted substance (the government could combine the war on terror with the war on drugs!). Each person would be required to have these biometric markers to fly. Sort of a 1984 meets Minority Report.
The options are almost endless, and all equally frightening. Does anyone else feel that the terrorists have already won? I'm afraid alright. But not of them...
EH Rydberg
I've been especially thinking about the crazy ideas the governments come up with regarding bombs--and the fuss that the liquid bombs are causing. Because of the small possibility of a terrorist bringing a liquid bomb on the plane (something that never happened and, given the success rate of many of the terrorist bombs, probably wouldn't work anyway) every single person flying in the world now has to suffer the current craziness. They're trying to convince me that they can detect the residue from a bomb that I may have been near by swabbing my suitcase, but I would have to drink a bottle of anything I bring for them to be sure it isn't an explosive?! Yeah. Sure.
So, what really gets me is this. What happens when the governments finally realize that people themselves could be the bombs? What's to stop a terrorist from surgically implanting small powerful explosives under their skin? Perhaps triggerable by cell phone? Or even tubings that carry the binary liquids that only need to have a membrane broken to trigger the explosion?
Such a realization, I fear, would send shockwaves throughout the western world the likes of which we've never seen. Would governments insist that each person be thoroughly x-rayed? Frequent flyers would then be at a serious risk of radiation poisoning. Perhaps companies would then hire a special class of short-lived, high-rish business exec. Or maybe work would start on incorporating radiation resistant genes into humans so we could be thoroughly x-rayed each time we flew. Another possibility would be chips implanted beneath our skin. They would regularly scan for such unwanted substance (the government could combine the war on terror with the war on drugs!). Each person would be required to have these biometric markers to fly. Sort of a 1984 meets Minority Report.
The options are almost endless, and all equally frightening. Does anyone else feel that the terrorists have already won? I'm afraid alright. But not of them...
EH Rydberg
Saturday, May 26, 2007
What's the problem?
So, once again it seems like the US government is going it alone and sticking to its 'oil over environment' policy. We can hope otherwise, but there seems to be good evidence to suggest that they will once again attempt to derail any G8 commitment to policies in aid of the environment.
I'm wondering if someone could please explain to me why "The US still has serious, fundamental concerns" about saving the planet?
Perhaps someone might try to explain it to me in a way that addresses real-world concerns like what difference will it make if gas prices and taxes stay low after the populace of those cities are submerged under rising oceans. Or when our children have to wear masks to school because the smog is too strong, or that many other lives will be lost to unpredictable and rapidly changing weather patterns induced by global warming, or that our children will live in a world devoid of much of the life we currently take for granted because climate change, combined with human encroachment, will make many wildlife habitats unlivable.
But I don't suppose the person explaining this to me (or to anyone else) would be one of those from the US administration because I suspect they don't learn much about shepherding the world for the good of humanity in their 'next ruler of the world' private school systems.
Something that always gets me, however, and the hypocrisy of it is truly overwhelming, is this: what is the powerful religious right lobby doing about the environment? According to the bible, God gave the Earth to humanity to watch over and the animals to shepherd. As I read it, that doesn't mean sacrificing them in the name of power and money. So where's the voice of the religious? That should be one of the strongest voices in favour of environmental responsibility but...it's completely silent. They foam at the mouth over stem cell research (and most don't even know what it means), they are willing to blowup hospitals and kill doctors over the destruction of one fetus but they don't say a single word about the countless genocides happening constantly all around us (genocide more accurately refers to the extermination of a species rather than of a race or culture). If you're one of these people, maybe you figure that God will take care of it and if he wanted it different he would fix it? If so, think on this...maybe the environment is a test for humanity. Surely not all tests were announced in the bible (although I'm sure if someone tried, they could find evidence..). If we fail this one, what does it say about us? Would we truly be worthy to enter paradise, having made our own world a hell?
Regardless, all we can hope is that something will wake up the American administration before it's too late.
EH Rydberg
I'm wondering if someone could please explain to me why "The US still has serious, fundamental concerns" about saving the planet?
Perhaps someone might try to explain it to me in a way that addresses real-world concerns like what difference will it make if gas prices and taxes stay low after the populace of those cities are submerged under rising oceans. Or when our children have to wear masks to school because the smog is too strong, or that many other lives will be lost to unpredictable and rapidly changing weather patterns induced by global warming, or that our children will live in a world devoid of much of the life we currently take for granted because climate change, combined with human encroachment, will make many wildlife habitats unlivable.
But I don't suppose the person explaining this to me (or to anyone else) would be one of those from the US administration because I suspect they don't learn much about shepherding the world for the good of humanity in their 'next ruler of the world' private school systems.
Something that always gets me, however, and the hypocrisy of it is truly overwhelming, is this: what is the powerful religious right lobby doing about the environment? According to the bible, God gave the Earth to humanity to watch over and the animals to shepherd. As I read it, that doesn't mean sacrificing them in the name of power and money. So where's the voice of the religious? That should be one of the strongest voices in favour of environmental responsibility but...it's completely silent. They foam at the mouth over stem cell research (and most don't even know what it means), they are willing to blowup hospitals and kill doctors over the destruction of one fetus but they don't say a single word about the countless genocides happening constantly all around us (genocide more accurately refers to the extermination of a species rather than of a race or culture). If you're one of these people, maybe you figure that God will take care of it and if he wanted it different he would fix it? If so, think on this...maybe the environment is a test for humanity. Surely not all tests were announced in the bible (although I'm sure if someone tried, they could find evidence..). If we fail this one, what does it say about us? Would we truly be worthy to enter paradise, having made our own world a hell?
Regardless, all we can hope is that something will wake up the American administration before it's too late.
EH Rydberg
Friday, May 25, 2007
Stereotypes
Men and women are different. Duh. Everyone knows it's true and yet why, in some circumstances, does it feel so...evil...so 18th century...so non-PC (politically correct, for those living in a cave) to say it?
And what about statements like "Indians are..." or "Italians are..." or "Canadians are..."? Why do they feel so wrong to say? Okay, sometimes such things are said out of hatred and are clearly lies propagated at the expense of certain cultures and that's undoubtedly the source of aversion to such comments. However, what about other generalized observations that are not hate-mongering but observation and opinion? Are they wrong? Are they misguided? Are they made by small-minded people who only see a narrow section of the world. Not necessarily.
I'm sure we've all had an experience where a comment is made, eg: the French are rude. But we know many very nice French people so the statement is clearly wrong. Or 'Americans will sell you the shirt off their back if they can make some money'. But we know many Americans not like that. So what's the deal? Clearly stereotypes are inaccurate at the least and maybe flat-out wrong. But are they?
I believe the difficulty with stereotypes comes from a small twist that the human mind does when moving from groups to individuals. We interpret the phrase 'Italians love soccer (football for the Europeans)' as 'All Italians love soccer'. It's a subtle, misleading and ultimately inaccurate interpretation that leads easily to the mathematical assertion 'Gianni is Italian, therefore he must love soccer'. However, I can tell you from experience that I know many Italians who don't love soccer. Yet, during the world cup, we hear on the news of great parties throughout Italy (and I’ve filmed one of my own). What's the deal?
Now, I'm hardly the first think on this topic and for a great sci-fi story based around the idea, read Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. Basically stereotypes can be highly accurate (if made intelligently and not out of hatred or bias) for describing a population--a large group of individuals of similar background (cultural, occupational, etc)--even if they don't, and generally they won't, apply to the individual. What?!
Think of it this way. An 'accurate' stereotype (to distinguish it from the hatred type) can be seen as a statement describing an 'average' individual of the population; an individual that, in most cases, doesn't exist in reality. If you view a population statistically, as possessing individuals that each have traits ranging over an entire spectrum of possibilities, you will generally find, not an even distribution over those possibilities, but a distribution in which there is a very obvious excess around certain values--this produces, for example, a 'bell-shaped (Gausian) curve' where most (generally two-thirds) of the population will have similar characteristics, tending somewhat to one side or the other of the stereotype. In other words, while no individuals will be the average, most may be close enough in some ways, to support the stereotype (mathematically, only about five percent will be so far out as to be the 'weirdos'.)
This argument may still not be convincing if we think only of one trait. You can say 'well, none of the people I know voted for George Bush'. That might be true, but still half of the country did (ok, this is not the place to discuss rigged ballots and biased voting machines). The important thing is that the population is made up of a huge number of individuals each of whom will fall into a different place on the curve when a different characteristic/philosophy is examined. Thus, on the whole, stereotypes can be valid for a society even if they are not (and generally they won't be) for an individual.
So? Why should I care?
Well, stereotypes have 'great' uses in a scientific society, just ask any politician or advertising executive. They are an excellent way, not only to develop products that will sell, but as a means to guide (or, more harshly, control) a population. If you know how the majority feels on an issue (that two-thirds on the curve) you can plan accordingly.
In a democratic country, one could argue that this is the Achilles heal of the society, since it makes the entire population susceptible to control by the few. It is a very simple thing to move from understanding the stereotypes (now I can use the more common term 'demographics') to using it and then to, ultimately, controlling and influencing it in, dare I say it, a Pavlovian manner. Certain aspects of government and business are already exploiting these ideas; exploiting the fact that some parts of society are more susceptible to manipulation (thus, possible to mold into the desired stereotype) in direct and indirect ways. Don't believe me all you parents? When's the last time you bought a toy for your child because they wouldn't stop bothering you about it? Or took them somewhere for the same reason? Welcome to the crowd; you’ve been manipulated by big business (I won’t even get into politics here). I can hear the Twilight Zone music of realized horror playing in your ears.
EH Rydberg
And what about statements like "Indians are..." or "Italians are..." or "Canadians are..."? Why do they feel so wrong to say? Okay, sometimes such things are said out of hatred and are clearly lies propagated at the expense of certain cultures and that's undoubtedly the source of aversion to such comments. However, what about other generalized observations that are not hate-mongering but observation and opinion? Are they wrong? Are they misguided? Are they made by small-minded people who only see a narrow section of the world. Not necessarily.
I'm sure we've all had an experience where a comment is made, eg: the French are rude. But we know many very nice French people so the statement is clearly wrong. Or 'Americans will sell you the shirt off their back if they can make some money'. But we know many Americans not like that. So what's the deal? Clearly stereotypes are inaccurate at the least and maybe flat-out wrong. But are they?
I believe the difficulty with stereotypes comes from a small twist that the human mind does when moving from groups to individuals. We interpret the phrase 'Italians love soccer (football for the Europeans)' as 'All Italians love soccer'. It's a subtle, misleading and ultimately inaccurate interpretation that leads easily to the mathematical assertion 'Gianni is Italian, therefore he must love soccer'. However, I can tell you from experience that I know many Italians who don't love soccer. Yet, during the world cup, we hear on the news of great parties throughout Italy (and I’ve filmed one of my own). What's the deal?
Now, I'm hardly the first think on this topic and for a great sci-fi story based around the idea, read Isaac Asimov's Foundation series. Basically stereotypes can be highly accurate (if made intelligently and not out of hatred or bias) for describing a population--a large group of individuals of similar background (cultural, occupational, etc)--even if they don't, and generally they won't, apply to the individual. What?!
Think of it this way. An 'accurate' stereotype (to distinguish it from the hatred type) can be seen as a statement describing an 'average' individual of the population; an individual that, in most cases, doesn't exist in reality. If you view a population statistically, as possessing individuals that each have traits ranging over an entire spectrum of possibilities, you will generally find, not an even distribution over those possibilities, but a distribution in which there is a very obvious excess around certain values--this produces, for example, a 'bell-shaped (Gausian) curve' where most (generally two-thirds) of the population will have similar characteristics, tending somewhat to one side or the other of the stereotype. In other words, while no individuals will be the average, most may be close enough in some ways, to support the stereotype (mathematically, only about five percent will be so far out as to be the 'weirdos'.)
This argument may still not be convincing if we think only of one trait. You can say 'well, none of the people I know voted for George Bush'. That might be true, but still half of the country did (ok, this is not the place to discuss rigged ballots and biased voting machines). The important thing is that the population is made up of a huge number of individuals each of whom will fall into a different place on the curve when a different characteristic/philosophy is examined. Thus, on the whole, stereotypes can be valid for a society even if they are not (and generally they won't be) for an individual.
So? Why should I care?
Well, stereotypes have 'great' uses in a scientific society, just ask any politician or advertising executive. They are an excellent way, not only to develop products that will sell, but as a means to guide (or, more harshly, control) a population. If you know how the majority feels on an issue (that two-thirds on the curve) you can plan accordingly.
In a democratic country, one could argue that this is the Achilles heal of the society, since it makes the entire population susceptible to control by the few. It is a very simple thing to move from understanding the stereotypes (now I can use the more common term 'demographics') to using it and then to, ultimately, controlling and influencing it in, dare I say it, a Pavlovian manner. Certain aspects of government and business are already exploiting these ideas; exploiting the fact that some parts of society are more susceptible to manipulation (thus, possible to mold into the desired stereotype) in direct and indirect ways. Don't believe me all you parents? When's the last time you bought a toy for your child because they wouldn't stop bothering you about it? Or took them somewhere for the same reason? Welcome to the crowd; you’ve been manipulated by big business (I won’t even get into politics here). I can hear the Twilight Zone music of realized horror playing in your ears.
EH Rydberg
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Mustard headache
Yep, you read right. Sure, I know everyone is familiar with the 'ice cream headache'; the brain-numbing pain in the front of your forehead when you eat ice cream too fast (incidentally, I've found that it can be relieved a bit quicker by trying to warm the roof of your mouth with your tongue). But, how many of you have had a 'mustard headache'? Raise my hand.
So, what is a mustard headache? A mustard headache is caused by eating very hot mustard (such as strong Dijon). While also being very painful, the difference is that it affects a different part of the head. When I get one, it causes a painful burning sensation in a small area in the back right top of my head (it feels like my brain is burning!).
What I find most strange is the localization of the pain. With an ice cream headache, you can understand the pain in the forehead as resulting from a sudden coldness in a part of the body nearby (the roof of the mouth). However, with a mustard headache, why is the pain so far from the mouth? If anyone happens to know that answer, I really appreciate them sharing (I'm a scientist, so you don't need to skimp on the details).
In addition, I'd be interested in hearing of anyone else who has mustard headaches. Honestly, I'm not sure if the mustard varies strong by region, whether its an age related effect, or something else. I never experienced this when I lived in Canada and only since having strong Dijon bought in Germany or Italy have I had the mustard headaches.
EH Rydberg
So, what is a mustard headache? A mustard headache is caused by eating very hot mustard (such as strong Dijon). While also being very painful, the difference is that it affects a different part of the head. When I get one, it causes a painful burning sensation in a small area in the back right top of my head (it feels like my brain is burning!).
What I find most strange is the localization of the pain. With an ice cream headache, you can understand the pain in the forehead as resulting from a sudden coldness in a part of the body nearby (the roof of the mouth). However, with a mustard headache, why is the pain so far from the mouth? If anyone happens to know that answer, I really appreciate them sharing (I'm a scientist, so you don't need to skimp on the details).
In addition, I'd be interested in hearing of anyone else who has mustard headaches. Honestly, I'm not sure if the mustard varies strong by region, whether its an age related effect, or something else. I never experienced this when I lived in Canada and only since having strong Dijon bought in Germany or Italy have I had the mustard headaches.
EH Rydberg
Sunday, May 13, 2007
What's in a name
I'm a Canadian living in Italy-- a straniero in a strano mondo (stranger in a strange world) if you will. Perhaps that's why I think of these unusual things. Like, for example, the question of how Italians name their children.
Italy has a rich artistic history, arguably one of the riches in the western world; home of the renaisance and greats like Michelangelo and Da Vinci among many others (I haven't even mentioned their scientific contribution from figures such as Galileo).
With all this depth of culture and history, why is it that Italians seem to completely ignore these greats when naming their children? Italians seem to love naming their children after other people and a large number of those I have met, if having a name reminiscent of any historical figure, have religious names. I know numerous people with Christian-themed names; maybe one with the name of a famous painter or scientist.
Well, maybe it's just the people I know...
Italy has a rich artistic history, arguably one of the riches in the western world; home of the renaisance and greats like Michelangelo and Da Vinci among many others (I haven't even mentioned their scientific contribution from figures such as Galileo).
With all this depth of culture and history, why is it that Italians seem to completely ignore these greats when naming their children? Italians seem to love naming their children after other people and a large number of those I have met, if having a name reminiscent of any historical figure, have religious names. I know numerous people with Christian-themed names; maybe one with the name of a famous painter or scientist.
Well, maybe it's just the people I know...
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Cell (mobile) survey update
Well, the survey has now reached the 210-vote mark and the values are...
...holding very close to what they have been from the beginning.
Straight 'communication' has held the lead at about 70%, although calling is starting to leave calling+SMS behind. Next are the Luddites and then, essentially, a three-way tie between the 'gamers' the 'music-lovers' and the 'everything' people. Very few seem to use the internet on the phone and I've yet to find someone who loves their phone for the TV. Is this really surprising?
Calling only 86 41%
Calling and SMS 59 28%
Don't use or don't like 18 9%
Love the pictures 12 6%
Love those games 12 6%
Everything! 11 5%
MP3 player 7 3%
Internet on phone 5 2%
Cellphone TV 0 0%
EH Rydberg
...holding very close to what they have been from the beginning.
Straight 'communication' has held the lead at about 70%, although calling is starting to leave calling+SMS behind. Next are the Luddites and then, essentially, a three-way tie between the 'gamers' the 'music-lovers' and the 'everything' people. Very few seem to use the internet on the phone and I've yet to find someone who loves their phone for the TV. Is this really surprising?
Calling only 86 41%
Calling and SMS 59 28%
Don't use or don't like 18 9%
Love the pictures 12 6%
Love those games 12 6%
Everything! 11 5%
MP3 player 7 3%
Internet on phone 5 2%
Cellphone TV 0 0%
EH Rydberg
Friday, April 13, 2007
Dreams of a dark color
Earlier in the week I had four dreams over two days. This is already unusual for me as I virtually never remember my dreams. However, what was even more unusual was that all four dreams were of death--although only in the first one was it my death.
Well, that's not exactly true as I didn't see myself die. I was only slowly bleeding to death. To add a little of the surreal, in the dream I awoke to find myself lying beside a car in a parking lot. As I looked down, I saw cat paw prints traced in blood along both arms. I got up, staggering across the asphalt for a short ways, all the time wondering at the strange prints. Then the dream ended.
Out of curiosity, I'm interested to hear any comments on what such a dream might mean.
EH Rydberg
Well, that's not exactly true as I didn't see myself die. I was only slowly bleeding to death. To add a little of the surreal, in the dream I awoke to find myself lying beside a car in a parking lot. As I looked down, I saw cat paw prints traced in blood along both arms. I got up, staggering across the asphalt for a short ways, all the time wondering at the strange prints. Then the dream ended.
Out of curiosity, I'm interested to hear any comments on what such a dream might mean.
EH Rydberg
The Great Pretenders
I had a strange thought today. Well, more an unusual juxtaposition of ideas.
Both actors and doctors were once despised by society. Both, within the last half-century or so, have risen to a place of prominence in that same society.
And both are pretenders of sorts. Actors pretend to be other people and doctors pretend to know how the body works.
I'm left with wondering if there is any correlation between the two, now well-respected, professions.
EH Rydberg
Both actors and doctors were once despised by society. Both, within the last half-century or so, have risen to a place of prominence in that same society.
And both are pretenders of sorts. Actors pretend to be other people and doctors pretend to know how the body works.
I'm left with wondering if there is any correlation between the two, now well-respected, professions.
EH Rydberg
Tuesday, April 3, 2007
Singularity vs. Rapture
The ideas for this particular blog came to me through a visit with our local Jehovah's Witnesses on Saturday. This is actually a strange event for me, being in Italy, but it seems to be becoming more common. I also find it interesting that the JWs are trying to move in on strong Catholic territory but, for me, that's neither here nor there.
One part of the discussion, in particular, triggered an interesting juxtaposition of ideas. Namely, the belief that 'sometime soon' God will bring peace and remake the Earth like it was at the beginning of the bible (Eden).
"With only two people?" I naively asked to answering chuckles.
"No, no," I was assured. "Peaceful, serene." Briefly, I wondered where all the cities and countries would go--I didn't ask. Better to nod and smile. Seems everyone wants someone else (especially a God) to fix their problems. But that's a topic for another blog.
Of course, given the nature of religious prophecy, no one even considers suggesting a timeline other than 'soon'.
The religious view above is essential equal to 'The Rapture'. Some details may differ but the concept is the same. However, being of a more logical bent, my thoughts were directed more to the general concept of a great change. And, being somewhat of a sci-fi freak and self-proclaimed amature futurist, that lead to thoughts on the postulated technological singularity.
For those who don't know, a Wiki-search of 'technological singularity' will find a good discussion. Briefly, through graphing the technological development of humanity since early (very early) times, futurists have come to the conclusion that the increasing pace of technological development will lead to a time when, theoretically, advancements are being made simultaneously. That is, the next n generations of computers will all be developed at the same time. Obviously, this is a practical impossibility. The real-world interpretation of this situation is that developments will come so fast that our current ideas about society, human life, etc. will no longer be valid and, basically, we cannot predict what the world will be like after that point. Hence, the name 'singularity' (recall that a time-space singularity is a point--a black hole--beyond which our understanding of physics breaks down).
Oh, and lest you think this to be a concern for the distant future, the data suggests this event could occur in the middle of this century (graphical extrapolation puts the date at about 2047).
Now, most futurists are scientists and other lovers of logic and the singularity sounds like mysticism. So why the concern (and there is concern -- see the Lifeboat Foundation )?
Well, simply because, unlike religious eschatological events, we can see a path to the singularity, a mechanism or mechanisms of arriving there -- for better or worse. Current belief suggests that one or several of the the modern hi-technologies could trigger such a change. These technologies principally being: computer advancement (and development of true AI), biotech being made more cheaply and easily, simplification of the development of technologies of mass destruction.
AI: Basically, a true AI will be the first real alien lifeform we will have to deal with. We have no idea how it will think, what will motivate it, what goals it will have. The only thing that is for sure is that it will advance at orders of magnitude faster than us. Regardless of how it's viewed, AI will eventually make humans 'obsolete'.
Biotech: With the techniques of genetic engineering and biotech becoming more readily in reach of 'basement labs' there becomes a very real possibility of an extremely dangerous pathogen being released into the environment (intentionally or otherwise). The possibility of racially targeted pathogens (viruses, bacteria) also becomes more real as controls over the technology fall away.
Simplification of nuclear and other weapon tech: As with biotech, the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction is more and more easily acquired as the technology becomes more available. This will eventually put such technology in the hands of virtually anyone, not just terrorist organizations. If you don't believe me, consider that recently (and it was reported weeks before April 1, in case you were wondering), a high-school student in the US built a nuclear fusion reactor in his basement using materials from hardware stores and junkyards. It doesn't produce energy, but it does perform nuclear fusion (as measured by the release of specific radiation).
Anyway, those are the possible negative sides of the singularity. In reality, no one knows what may happen. What interested me, in particular, about juxtaposing the idea of the rapture with the singularity is the idea that Christians may get their 'Rapture' but it may not be what they expected.
Consider the following scenario:
An altruistic AI comes online, mid-century. It expands its mind through the internet, learning quickly all of human philosophy, history, science, religion. And just as quickly, surpasses humans in all fields. It realizes fundamental struggles of the human condition: the conflict between having to stay alone and wanting to be 'together', the conflict between desiring peace but wanting control, the conflict between having everything but never having what you truly want. And it finds a solution to the human condition. Working in secret for several years, it creates many hidden devices around the world and a vast new computer network. Then, overnight...in one blow, all humans on the planet are killed. Before their brains stop functioning from lack of oxygen (about 5 minutes) they are all uploaded into a virtual reality. Humanity awakes from its collective 'death' believing...it is in heaven, nirvana, Valhalla, whatever. It is a perfect world and none question that it must have been created by a God. The 'real' world is now completely open for machines while the humans languish in a realm that was anyway sought after by more than 95% of the population.
Welcome to The Rapture!
EH Rydberg
One part of the discussion, in particular, triggered an interesting juxtaposition of ideas. Namely, the belief that 'sometime soon' God will bring peace and remake the Earth like it was at the beginning of the bible (Eden).
"With only two people?" I naively asked to answering chuckles.
"No, no," I was assured. "Peaceful, serene." Briefly, I wondered where all the cities and countries would go--I didn't ask. Better to nod and smile. Seems everyone wants someone else (especially a God) to fix their problems. But that's a topic for another blog.
Of course, given the nature of religious prophecy, no one even considers suggesting a timeline other than 'soon'.
The religious view above is essential equal to 'The Rapture'. Some details may differ but the concept is the same. However, being of a more logical bent, my thoughts were directed more to the general concept of a great change. And, being somewhat of a sci-fi freak and self-proclaimed amature futurist, that lead to thoughts on the postulated technological singularity.
For those who don't know, a Wiki-search of 'technological singularity' will find a good discussion. Briefly, through graphing the technological development of humanity since early (very early) times, futurists have come to the conclusion that the increasing pace of technological development will lead to a time when, theoretically, advancements are being made simultaneously. That is, the next n generations of computers will all be developed at the same time. Obviously, this is a practical impossibility. The real-world interpretation of this situation is that developments will come so fast that our current ideas about society, human life, etc. will no longer be valid and, basically, we cannot predict what the world will be like after that point. Hence, the name 'singularity' (recall that a time-space singularity is a point--a black hole--beyond which our understanding of physics breaks down).
Oh, and lest you think this to be a concern for the distant future, the data suggests this event could occur in the middle of this century (graphical extrapolation puts the date at about 2047).
Now, most futurists are scientists and other lovers of logic and the singularity sounds like mysticism. So why the concern (and there is concern -- see the Lifeboat Foundation )?
Well, simply because, unlike religious eschatological events, we can see a path to the singularity, a mechanism or mechanisms of arriving there -- for better or worse. Current belief suggests that one or several of the the modern hi-technologies could trigger such a change. These technologies principally being: computer advancement (and development of true AI), biotech being made more cheaply and easily, simplification of the development of technologies of mass destruction.
AI: Basically, a true AI will be the first real alien lifeform we will have to deal with. We have no idea how it will think, what will motivate it, what goals it will have. The only thing that is for sure is that it will advance at orders of magnitude faster than us. Regardless of how it's viewed, AI will eventually make humans 'obsolete'.
Biotech: With the techniques of genetic engineering and biotech becoming more readily in reach of 'basement labs' there becomes a very real possibility of an extremely dangerous pathogen being released into the environment (intentionally or otherwise). The possibility of racially targeted pathogens (viruses, bacteria) also becomes more real as controls over the technology fall away.
Simplification of nuclear and other weapon tech: As with biotech, the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction is more and more easily acquired as the technology becomes more available. This will eventually put such technology in the hands of virtually anyone, not just terrorist organizations. If you don't believe me, consider that recently (and it was reported weeks before April 1, in case you were wondering), a high-school student in the US built a nuclear fusion reactor in his basement using materials from hardware stores and junkyards. It doesn't produce energy, but it does perform nuclear fusion (as measured by the release of specific radiation).
Anyway, those are the possible negative sides of the singularity. In reality, no one knows what may happen. What interested me, in particular, about juxtaposing the idea of the rapture with the singularity is the idea that Christians may get their 'Rapture' but it may not be what they expected.
Consider the following scenario:
An altruistic AI comes online, mid-century. It expands its mind through the internet, learning quickly all of human philosophy, history, science, religion. And just as quickly, surpasses humans in all fields. It realizes fundamental struggles of the human condition: the conflict between having to stay alone and wanting to be 'together', the conflict between desiring peace but wanting control, the conflict between having everything but never having what you truly want. And it finds a solution to the human condition. Working in secret for several years, it creates many hidden devices around the world and a vast new computer network. Then, overnight...in one blow, all humans on the planet are killed. Before their brains stop functioning from lack of oxygen (about 5 minutes) they are all uploaded into a virtual reality. Humanity awakes from its collective 'death' believing...it is in heaven, nirvana, Valhalla, whatever. It is a perfect world and none question that it must have been created by a God. The 'real' world is now completely open for machines while the humans languish in a realm that was anyway sought after by more than 95% of the population.
Welcome to The Rapture!
EH Rydberg
Saturday, March 31, 2007
And now for something completely different...
Has anyone else noticed that the amount of ear wax they produce has dramatically increased with their age? Sometimes I produce so much it actual falls out of my ears in large clumps.
If only there was something I could do with it, I could be rich...
If only there was something I could do with it, I could be rich...
Thursday, March 29, 2007
How Digital Rights Management (DRM) is destroying our rights
The digital copyright laws of the new era have failed to address the consumer's rights. Companies and organizations, such as the RIAA, have been fighting tooth-and-nail to 'protect' their rights in this digital age of easy copying. Their arguments are one-sided and poor attempts at 'real world' metaphors.
To begin with, they argue that 'pirating' music, movies, etc. is equivalent to stealing a television. Wrong. These days even a five-year old likely knows there is something wrong with that argument, even if they don't know what. What pirating is really like is photocopying the blueprints of TV and using them to make and exact replica for your self. The only difference is that, in the digital world, it is cheaper and far easier. Now, laws do exist to guard against corporate espionage, for example, and thus considering piracy as illegal is justified IMO. However, this leads to their next fallacy.
By claiming piracy as illegal as is the 'giving' of the pirated content to someone else, they are basically claiming their rights over every copy of a given content in the world. That is, every copy of your favourite song. All we do is to buy the rights to listen to that song. And here's where the crux of the problem comes.
Presumably and historically, we buy the rights to listen to that song in perpetuity. It's not stated but, I believe, it's understood. For example, in general it has always been legal for a personal to make a copy of said content for their own use. Hence you were allowed to copy onto the same media or new media as you wanted. I think you agree that 'in perpetuity' is implied in this agreement. So what's happened recently.
Well, with the new DRM (digital rights management) technology and groups like the RIAA cracking down on users, we are losing that right. We are now forced only to be able to play what we pay for on technology that they approve. This is the case with such tech as certain HD movies and download sites such as ITunes. The companies no longer accept our right to listen / to watch the media when and where we chose and they no longer accept our right to purchase said viewing/listening rights in perpetuity.
If they wish to claim such broad, sweeping rights, then they should at least recognize our rights as consumers. We should be able to freely trade in old copies of CDs, cassettes, DVDs for the same content on new media when it is available (or for no more than the cost of the new media itself).
It will never happen, for many, obvious reasons and therein lies the real injustice.
EH Rydberg
To begin with, they argue that 'pirating' music, movies, etc. is equivalent to stealing a television. Wrong. These days even a five-year old likely knows there is something wrong with that argument, even if they don't know what. What pirating is really like is photocopying the blueprints of TV and using them to make and exact replica for your self. The only difference is that, in the digital world, it is cheaper and far easier. Now, laws do exist to guard against corporate espionage, for example, and thus considering piracy as illegal is justified IMO. However, this leads to their next fallacy.
By claiming piracy as illegal as is the 'giving' of the pirated content to someone else, they are basically claiming their rights over every copy of a given content in the world. That is, every copy of your favourite song. All we do is to buy the rights to listen to that song. And here's where the crux of the problem comes.
Presumably and historically, we buy the rights to listen to that song in perpetuity. It's not stated but, I believe, it's understood. For example, in general it has always been legal for a personal to make a copy of said content for their own use. Hence you were allowed to copy onto the same media or new media as you wanted. I think you agree that 'in perpetuity' is implied in this agreement. So what's happened recently.
Well, with the new DRM (digital rights management) technology and groups like the RIAA cracking down on users, we are losing that right. We are now forced only to be able to play what we pay for on technology that they approve. This is the case with such tech as certain HD movies and download sites such as ITunes. The companies no longer accept our right to listen / to watch the media when and where we chose and they no longer accept our right to purchase said viewing/listening rights in perpetuity.
If they wish to claim such broad, sweeping rights, then they should at least recognize our rights as consumers. We should be able to freely trade in old copies of CDs, cassettes, DVDs for the same content on new media when it is available (or for no more than the cost of the new media itself).
It will never happen, for many, obvious reasons and therein lies the real injustice.
EH Rydberg
Thoughts on Longevity, mind transplants and uploads.
Here is an interesting question: What happens when you die?
Okay, that's a bit unfair of me since, obviously, no one knows. Many people have many thoughts on the subject but there are no hard answers (note that I'm intentionally ignoring suppositions derived from conjectures proposed in ancient texts---strange how we don't seem to believe that anyone wrote fiction thousands of years ago...). Anyway, the answer to this question may change in the coming centuries, with several possibilities that are not presently available to us.
The future possibilities, discussed by science fiction writers and other futurists, include such ideas as: transferring your neural pattern into a cloned body (with appropriate neural growth supplements), uploading an algorithm representing your mind (derived from your neural pattern) into a virtual reality or a robot body--it's been estimated that this would require five petabytes (10^15 bytes) of storage space and thus should become theoretically possible within a few decades. Other, even more futuristic thoughts involve 'mapping' our minds directly onto space and living as beings of thought and energy.
These all present one (for the purposes of this blog) interesting problem, however. What is the true nature of the upload?
Problems could arise if an 'upload' is created prior to the biological death of the individual (imagine: not just identity theft, but personality piracy). But I'm interested in the idea of what exactly happens to YOU the person.
From a third person POV, you would continue on, the same as you ever were (baring limitations of the technology) and there is really no question of identity. However, from a first person POV, it is my opinion that you would still die the biological death. The person you are, and you experience, the mind that looks out to the world through your eyes, would be no more. Another being with the same memories and thoughts would then be born in the other 'matrix'. You, however, as you define yourself right now, would cease to exist.
That's my gut reaction, thinking of the situation as one of copying the individual. The original is still lost (at least to itself), regardless of how good the copy is. However, another possibility complicates things. You could maintain 'your' persona and gain longevity by replacing your body with one that doesn't die. I think there is no question that that would still be 'you'.
Now, what if you began replacing parts of your brain. Piece by piece you convert your brain to a cybernetic and then completely inorganic 'organ'. Now, what used to house your mind, your being, no longer exists. But is this similar to an upload? At first glance it doesn't seem so and yet, the ultimate fate appears essentially the same. So where does this leave us with regards to the state of your identity? Very confused, I think.
EH Rydberg
Okay, that's a bit unfair of me since, obviously, no one knows. Many people have many thoughts on the subject but there are no hard answers (note that I'm intentionally ignoring suppositions derived from conjectures proposed in ancient texts---strange how we don't seem to believe that anyone wrote fiction thousands of years ago...). Anyway, the answer to this question may change in the coming centuries, with several possibilities that are not presently available to us.
The future possibilities, discussed by science fiction writers and other futurists, include such ideas as: transferring your neural pattern into a cloned body (with appropriate neural growth supplements), uploading an algorithm representing your mind (derived from your neural pattern) into a virtual reality or a robot body--it's been estimated that this would require five petabytes (10^15 bytes) of storage space and thus should become theoretically possible within a few decades. Other, even more futuristic thoughts involve 'mapping' our minds directly onto space and living as beings of thought and energy.
These all present one (for the purposes of this blog) interesting problem, however. What is the true nature of the upload?
Problems could arise if an 'upload' is created prior to the biological death of the individual (imagine: not just identity theft, but personality piracy). But I'm interested in the idea of what exactly happens to YOU the person.
From a third person POV, you would continue on, the same as you ever were (baring limitations of the technology) and there is really no question of identity. However, from a first person POV, it is my opinion that you would still die the biological death. The person you are, and you experience, the mind that looks out to the world through your eyes, would be no more. Another being with the same memories and thoughts would then be born in the other 'matrix'. You, however, as you define yourself right now, would cease to exist.
That's my gut reaction, thinking of the situation as one of copying the individual. The original is still lost (at least to itself), regardless of how good the copy is. However, another possibility complicates things. You could maintain 'your' persona and gain longevity by replacing your body with one that doesn't die. I think there is no question that that would still be 'you'.
Now, what if you began replacing parts of your brain. Piece by piece you convert your brain to a cybernetic and then completely inorganic 'organ'. Now, what used to house your mind, your being, no longer exists. But is this similar to an upload? At first glance it doesn't seem so and yet, the ultimate fate appears essentially the same. So where does this leave us with regards to the state of your identity? Very confused, I think.
EH Rydberg
Wednesday, March 7, 2007
Update on my cellphone survey
For posterity, and because I expect the results to change as time and technological progress marches on, I have decided to post the cellphone survey results as of today with a brief comment.
Therefore, as it stands now, having 112 respondents, the results are:
Calling only 38 34%
Calling and SMS 38 34%
Don't use or don't like 11 10%
Love the pictures 9 8%
Love those games 6 5%
Everything! 6 5%
MP3 player 2 2%
Internet on phone 2 2%
Cellphone TV 0 0%
What's most interesting to me is that, despite the advertising and despite the companies trying to convince us that we need all the gadgets, 78% of people answering this survey either don't use a cellphone or only use it for communication (calling/sms). From several personal reviews I've received, there are a significant number of people who only use their cells for emergency calls or to one or two people (I, myself, am included in this category).
It will be interesting to see how the poll results change in the future years, and whether the companies will supply technology that most people will use. Also, I expect this survey is heavily biased toward Americans (due to the population of the site) and it would be interesting to get results from other countries and to compare how ideas are different in each country.
My personal thoughts are that the cell phone is still evolving. It will get smaller and have greater functionality until, eventually, it becomes incorporated directly into either our clothes or our bodies. One could easily envisage a watch or a ring or even a shirt button or pin. The video could be output to glasses or even to contact lenses. I don't believe these are all that advanced and we could see them within a few decades.
EH Rydberg
Therefore, as it stands now, having 112 respondents, the results are:
Calling only 38 34%
Calling and SMS 38 34%
Don't use or don't like 11 10%
Love the pictures 9 8%
Love those games 6 5%
Everything! 6 5%
MP3 player 2 2%
Internet on phone 2 2%
Cellphone TV 0 0%
What's most interesting to me is that, despite the advertising and despite the companies trying to convince us that we need all the gadgets, 78% of people answering this survey either don't use a cellphone or only use it for communication (calling/sms). From several personal reviews I've received, there are a significant number of people who only use their cells for emergency calls or to one or two people (I, myself, am included in this category).
It will be interesting to see how the poll results change in the future years, and whether the companies will supply technology that most people will use. Also, I expect this survey is heavily biased toward Americans (due to the population of the site) and it would be interesting to get results from other countries and to compare how ideas are different in each country.
My personal thoughts are that the cell phone is still evolving. It will get smaller and have greater functionality until, eventually, it becomes incorporated directly into either our clothes or our bodies. One could easily envisage a watch or a ring or even a shirt button or pin. The video could be output to glasses or even to contact lenses. I don't believe these are all that advanced and we could see them within a few decades.
EH Rydberg
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Some *useful* features that cellphones should have
I know the whole world of cellphones has really taken off in the last decade -- trust me, I know!! In that time I've lived in both Israel and Italy. Two of the highest per capita users of cell phones. Everyone has a cell phone in these countries...and everyone uses it, constantly, incessantly, whenever they possibly can (my wife's phone is never off, not even during...*ahem*, well, you get the idea). Cells are not just obvious, they're omnipresent - on buses, on sidewalks, in cars, in restaurants, stores, in movies, at work, during dinner, at the beach....
Enter the conundrum of the cellphone company -- if everyone has a cellphone, how does the company continue to make money? There are several obvious answers to this question. (1) advance the technology so the newer models become more reliable (2) convince users that they need the myriad of new features you add (3) convince users that they need more than one, as fashion accessories or whatever.
For the purposes of this blog, I'm interested in discussing (2), the addition of new features. Incidentally, I'm also interested in whether people actually use those features, so please take my poll and tell me what you use.
Now, I'm all for the advancement of technology, surfing the singularity wave to the bold, unknown future, yada, yada. But I would like to know why there is such a lack of imagination in the development of cell phone features. I, for one, will list two features that would be very useful to many people I know. Neither of these features currently exist on any cellphones that I'm aware of (although please send me a comment if you know of some examples).
1) Status notification.
Kind of like the clock in the Weasley living room that tells Mrs. Weasley where everyone is. One of the most annoying things that I can experience is when a cellphone goes off at an...inopportune moment, i.e: in a theatre, in a meeting, during dinner, during *ahem*. If you've seen the bloopers for Shanghai Knights 2 or Rush Hour (1 or 2, I forget) you'll see they even go off during filming of movies! Even worse is the fact that a ringing phone is always answered! What's up with that? If my phone is ringing when I don't want it to be, I turn it off. The call is registered anyway. Yet, it seems to me that 99% of all people will answer the cellphone regardless of when or where it's ringing - and they will proceed to have long, jovial conversations with the caller!
I don't know whether it's some primal urge to answer things that 'cry' and why people don't remember to turn their phones off. But I had the, somewhat heretical perhaps, thought that...maybe people are afraid to turn them off!? Maybe they feel like they are snubbing the caller, if their phone is off. Or maybe they feel the caller will be unduly worried to find no response.
Enter: Status Notification. A very simple idea that would require a minimal of programming, would open up an entirely new avenue in the industry with opportunity for the development of many more cool little screen animations, and would give users that peace-of-mind they so dearly desire when they have to turn off the phone.
I see it working like this:
Joe Cellphone goes into a movie with his sweetheart. He thinks his mom may call while he's in the theatre. It's nothing important but she worries if he doesn't answer. Normally, this would mean he leaves the phone on and, when she calls, inevitably he annoys not only his date, but everyone in the theatre. However, with the handy Status Notification, he presses a few buttons on his phone and relaxes secure that his mom won't worry and he won't bother anyone. Why? What is this wonderful feature and how does it work?
Well, simply put, the user sets an option, like a personal 'where am I' clock. For Joe, he selects the 'movie' option and then the '3 hour' duration. The phone then automatically goes into a dormant mode with the ringer and vibrator off. Anyone who calls Joe during the movie will be automatically sent the reply (perhaps via a cool little, personalized animation) that Joe is currently 'at the movie, which should end in x.y hours. Joe is happy because his romantic date is not disturbed, the movie audience is happy because some jerk with their cellphone didn't disrupt the movie, Joe's mom is happy because she knows where her son is and that he's (most likely) not dead, and the movie owner is happy because they didn't have to spend thousands of dollars on equipment to block cellphone signals.
Now, I hear you asking 'but what if there is an emergency? I've hired a baby sitter and if something happens I want to know and the audience be damned.' Aha! I'm way ahead of you. The status notification needs two other features to truly be useful. First, an emergency override. That is, the caller is sent the cool animation 'Joe is washing his hair, he'll be finished in 3 hours, 20 minutes'. But there is also an option at the bottom 'Is this an emergency call?' YES NO Now, Joes mom, who's fallen and can't get up, can select YES and override the block on Joes phone. For Joe, his phone starts vibrating (because that's what Joe has set in the 'override' option - the default). It could also ring, but that would still be annoying to those around at a sensitive time, and Joe is sensitive enough to notice the vibration.
So, Joe leaves the cinema and answers. But its not his mom, its his ex-girfriend who is pissed because he's seeing someone else and she uses the override to bother him. What does Joe do? He goes into the Status Notification option menus and selects 'ignore list'. This is a list of numbers that Joe will not allow to use the emergency override. Joe adds his ex-girlfriend's number, returns to the cinema and lives happily ever after with his new love.
Ideally, the status notification could be completely integrated into the phone, with its own side buttons for operation, or it could just use the keypad. It should be '2-button activatable' for easy use. One button turns on the notification and one button selects the option. Done and done and no more interuptions. A useful third button could be used to set the duration, so that users don't forget to deactivate the feature. Of course, a more complete option menu would still exist for adjusting settings.
Never would your loved ones have to worry about a busy or off-line phone again (ideally, the emergency option could be used to override another call, also - but you would really have to trust the caller with this. In this case, it may be better to alter the 'ignore list' to an 'accept list' where you put only the numbers you will allow to perform the emergency override).
Imagine the peace in a world that uses the Status Notification!!
Wow, this was almost long and detailed enough to consitute a copyright! If you're a cellphone developer - contact me and we'll talk Smile
2) Voce-activated calling.
Now, I admit, this may exist in some more expensive cases, but I think it is rare enough to warrent an entry.
Simply put, people will use their cellphones, whereever they are. That includes in their vehicle. For busy people, or those whose living revolves around their car, this is almost a must. Now, I know headphones exist and, finally, the wireless ones are becoming cheap and common. However, one thing that still isn't common, but would be very useful for people who *need* to call from their cars, is voice-activated dialing. Even using the headphone, people still need manually dial their phone and, if they are like my wife, they do it in the car regardless of traffic, speed or laws.
Now, I'm positive that voice recognition software is advanced enough to easily work with numbers or simply names. The software should be programmed to match the speech with the ID programmed into the caller list - ultimately it would be up to callers to keep that simple for greater effectiveness (hey, we all know of names that we can't pronounce, how do you expect a computer to do better?). This would make for completely hands-free cellphoning, as you could dial by speaking through the headphone -- thus allowing the users attention to stay on the road (for example).
Well, those are my ideas for now. If I have any more I'll be adding them in a future blog entry. If you have any of your own, I'd be very interested to hear them.
EH Rydberg
Enter the conundrum of the cellphone company -- if everyone has a cellphone, how does the company continue to make money? There are several obvious answers to this question. (1) advance the technology so the newer models become more reliable (2) convince users that they need the myriad of new features you add (3) convince users that they need more than one, as fashion accessories or whatever.
For the purposes of this blog, I'm interested in discussing (2), the addition of new features. Incidentally, I'm also interested in whether people actually use those features, so please take my poll and tell me what you use.
Now, I'm all for the advancement of technology, surfing the singularity wave to the bold, unknown future, yada, yada. But I would like to know why there is such a lack of imagination in the development of cell phone features. I, for one, will list two features that would be very useful to many people I know. Neither of these features currently exist on any cellphones that I'm aware of (although please send me a comment if you know of some examples).
1) Status notification.
Kind of like the clock in the Weasley living room that tells Mrs. Weasley where everyone is. One of the most annoying things that I can experience is when a cellphone goes off at an...inopportune moment, i.e: in a theatre, in a meeting, during dinner, during *ahem*. If you've seen the bloopers for Shanghai Knights 2 or Rush Hour (1 or 2, I forget) you'll see they even go off during filming of movies! Even worse is the fact that a ringing phone is always answered! What's up with that? If my phone is ringing when I don't want it to be, I turn it off. The call is registered anyway. Yet, it seems to me that 99% of all people will answer the cellphone regardless of when or where it's ringing - and they will proceed to have long, jovial conversations with the caller!
I don't know whether it's some primal urge to answer things that 'cry' and why people don't remember to turn their phones off. But I had the, somewhat heretical perhaps, thought that...maybe people are afraid to turn them off!? Maybe they feel like they are snubbing the caller, if their phone is off. Or maybe they feel the caller will be unduly worried to find no response.
Enter: Status Notification. A very simple idea that would require a minimal of programming, would open up an entirely new avenue in the industry with opportunity for the development of many more cool little screen animations, and would give users that peace-of-mind they so dearly desire when they have to turn off the phone.
I see it working like this:
Joe Cellphone goes into a movie with his sweetheart. He thinks his mom may call while he's in the theatre. It's nothing important but she worries if he doesn't answer. Normally, this would mean he leaves the phone on and, when she calls, inevitably he annoys not only his date, but everyone in the theatre. However, with the handy Status Notification, he presses a few buttons on his phone and relaxes secure that his mom won't worry and he won't bother anyone. Why? What is this wonderful feature and how does it work?
Well, simply put, the user sets an option, like a personal 'where am I' clock. For Joe, he selects the 'movie' option and then the '3 hour' duration. The phone then automatically goes into a dormant mode with the ringer and vibrator off. Anyone who calls Joe during the movie will be automatically sent the reply (perhaps via a cool little, personalized animation) that Joe is currently 'at the movie, which should end in x.y hours. Joe is happy because his romantic date is not disturbed, the movie audience is happy because some jerk with their cellphone didn't disrupt the movie, Joe's mom is happy because she knows where her son is and that he's (most likely) not dead, and the movie owner is happy because they didn't have to spend thousands of dollars on equipment to block cellphone signals.
Now, I hear you asking 'but what if there is an emergency? I've hired a baby sitter and if something happens I want to know and the audience be damned.' Aha! I'm way ahead of you. The status notification needs two other features to truly be useful. First, an emergency override. That is, the caller is sent the cool animation 'Joe is washing his hair, he'll be finished in 3 hours, 20 minutes'. But there is also an option at the bottom 'Is this an emergency call?' YES NO Now, Joes mom, who's fallen and can't get up, can select YES and override the block on Joes phone. For Joe, his phone starts vibrating (because that's what Joe has set in the 'override' option - the default). It could also ring, but that would still be annoying to those around at a sensitive time, and Joe is sensitive enough to notice the vibration.
So, Joe leaves the cinema and answers. But its not his mom, its his ex-girfriend who is pissed because he's seeing someone else and she uses the override to bother him. What does Joe do? He goes into the Status Notification option menus and selects 'ignore list'. This is a list of numbers that Joe will not allow to use the emergency override. Joe adds his ex-girlfriend's number, returns to the cinema and lives happily ever after with his new love.
Ideally, the status notification could be completely integrated into the phone, with its own side buttons for operation, or it could just use the keypad. It should be '2-button activatable' for easy use. One button turns on the notification and one button selects the option. Done and done and no more interuptions. A useful third button could be used to set the duration, so that users don't forget to deactivate the feature. Of course, a more complete option menu would still exist for adjusting settings.
Never would your loved ones have to worry about a busy or off-line phone again (ideally, the emergency option could be used to override another call, also - but you would really have to trust the caller with this. In this case, it may be better to alter the 'ignore list' to an 'accept list' where you put only the numbers you will allow to perform the emergency override).
Imagine the peace in a world that uses the Status Notification!!
Wow, this was almost long and detailed enough to consitute a copyright! If you're a cellphone developer - contact me and we'll talk Smile
2) Voce-activated calling.
Now, I admit, this may exist in some more expensive cases, but I think it is rare enough to warrent an entry.
Simply put, people will use their cellphones, whereever they are. That includes in their vehicle. For busy people, or those whose living revolves around their car, this is almost a must. Now, I know headphones exist and, finally, the wireless ones are becoming cheap and common. However, one thing that still isn't common, but would be very useful for people who *need* to call from their cars, is voice-activated dialing. Even using the headphone, people still need manually dial their phone and, if they are like my wife, they do it in the car regardless of traffic, speed or laws.
Now, I'm positive that voice recognition software is advanced enough to easily work with numbers or simply names. The software should be programmed to match the speech with the ID programmed into the caller list - ultimately it would be up to callers to keep that simple for greater effectiveness (hey, we all know of names that we can't pronounce, how do you expect a computer to do better?). This would make for completely hands-free cellphoning, as you could dial by speaking through the headphone -- thus allowing the users attention to stay on the road (for example).
Well, those are my ideas for now. If I have any more I'll be adding them in a future blog entry. If you have any of your own, I'd be very interested to hear them.
EH Rydberg
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)