Thursday, April 30, 2009

.

Oddly named people: Gutzon Borglum

Mount RushmoreFew people who visit Mount Rushmore will forget the name of its designer, sculptor Gutzon Borglum. I’ve always chuckled at his odd name, while marvelling at his work.

Borglum created a number of pieces of public art. The one I’ve encountered most often, during the time I lived in the Washington, DC, area, is his statue of Civil War general Philip Sheridan, displayed at Sheridan Circle, at 23rd Street and Massachusetts Avenue, next to Rock Creek Park. His most famous, though, is Mount Rushmore.

The massive Mount Rushmore National Memorial, in the Black Hills of South Dakota, depicting the faces of four U.S. presidents, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Theodore Roosevelt, and Abraham Lincoln. The monument took fourteen years to finish, and the final bits of what we see today were actually completed by the artist’s son Lincoln — named after the president — in the months after Gutzon’s death in 1941. Much more had been planned for the sculpture (the presidents were supposed to be seen from the waist up), but time and money settled us on what’s there.

His next most well known involvement is in the sculpture at Stone Mountain, Georgia, near Atlanta. Cut into the face of the granite rock, above a nice park, are the figures of three Confederate heroes — Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson, Robert E. Lee, and Jefferson Davis — riding horses. Borglum worked on the Stone Mountain project from its first cut in 1923, and the carving of General Lee’s head was unveiled in 1924. But he abandoned the project because of arguments with those in charge, the project was taken over by others (Augustus Lukeman in the 1920s, and Walker Hancock and Roy Faulkner in the 1960s) who completely removed Borglum’s work and replaced it.

But his name will always be remembered for Mount Rushmore, probably the most impressive sculpture in the world, visited by around two million people a year.

Wednesday, April 29, 2009

.

Changes at Sci Am

I was saddened to hear about the reorganization of Scientific American magazine, which has been announced in the last few days. I just spoke with John Rennie a week ago, and got no clue that it was in the works — perhaps he didn’t know the details then, or, more likely, he wasn’t saying.

I wonder what it will do to the magazine, of course. While John will still write for the magazine and will “continue to consult [...] in some capacity,” it’s always hard to predict what changes will come from swapping out an Editor in Chief, especially one who’s been chief for as long as fifteen years.

And from the personal side, John’s a friendly and interesting guy. I hope he enjoys what comes next, and that we all profit from the result.

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

.

Africa on television

Those of you who get the HBO TV channel and are looking for a real winner of a television series should not miss The No. 1 Ladies’ Detective Agency. It’s based on the stories of Alexander McCall Smith, about a woman in Botswana who sets up a business as a private detective. There are mysteries solved — some with happy outcomes, and some not — but the show is really about the characters, more than about the cases.

It’s wonderful to see a mainstream television series set in a little-known African country — Botswana, once a British protectorate called Bechuanaland, is nestled among the higher-profile South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Namibia — and starring many African actors. The scenery is gorgeous, and it’s great in high definition. And we see something of African life beyond the “nature” shows.

The two principals are African-American actresses. The detective, Precious Ramotswe, is played by Jill Scott, who proves that it’s not necessary to be Twiggy to be beautiful. (And I see that she just had a new baby a week ago!) Her assistant, Grace Makutsi, is theatre and film actress Anika Noni Rose. Many of the others, though, are African, including South African Desmond Dube from Hotel Rwanda.

And the costumes are as gorgeous as the scenery. I love the colours and patterns, and wouldn’t mind a few shirts from the same fabric as Ms Scott’s dresses.

But another thing I find engaging about the show is the tiny glimpse we get of the local language. Almost everything is in English, of course, but we’re teased by a few phrases in Setswana. Setswana, spoken in Botswana and parts of South Africa, Zimbabwe, and Namibia, is a Sotho language, a subgroup of Bantu. What we hear most is the standard greeting, “Dumela, mma,” meaning “Hello, ma’am,” using the word for “mother” as a general feminine term of respect. (And, of course, the corresponding, “Dumela, rra,” for “sir”.) We also hear, “Ee, mma,” (pronounced “eh”) for “Yes, ma’am,” along with “nnyaa” for “no”. Other words and phrases haven’t so far been repeated enough for me to’ve picked them up.

[Update: See the comments for some language links.]

In the episode titled “The Boy with an African Heart”, we hear a conversation in the Xhosa language, carried on through a translator. The Xhosa “click” sounds are fascinating. I always wonder, when I consider various languages, how we settle on the particular set of sounds we use in our languages, and how those sounds vary from language to language.

Watch this show, if you can! The first seven episodes have aired so far, but episodes 5 thru 7 are still scheduled for repeat airings. I will certainly buy the DVD set when it comes out — I’ll want to see these more than once or twice.

Monday, April 27, 2009

.

Holy license plates, Batman!

Florida is a strange state. I know: I grew up there. As a largely rural, southern state that relies on tourism and retirement communities for much of its income, it has an odd mix of liberalism and conservatism, of northern sensibility and bible-belt fanaticism. The state’s capital, Tallahassee, displays that mixture well — its location in the “panhandle” puts it smack in the bible belt, near southern Georgia and Alabama; the presence of legislators from all over the state and of Florida State University gives it ideological variety and an academic spin. Where I grew up, on the southeast coast... well, think of it as a slice of New York and a slice of eastern Canada made into a sandwich on Cuban bread.

So I’m not used to the part of Florida that wants to put Jesus on its license plates. Well, not for everyone; only for those who want to have “a picture of my Lord and savior Jesus Christ” there. The St Petersburg Times reports that a bill to authorize some religious-oriented “specialty” license plates has passed the state’s Senate, but the proposal in the House was withdrawn.

What’s disturbing isn’t just the idea that you can get Jesus, or a cross and a stained-glass window, on your official state license plate... as one of the senators who proposed them notes, there are plenty of specialty plates with all kinds of symbols promoting all kinds of organizations. It’s more disturbing that the state is collecting money from registrants and distributing it to religious organizations. And it’s disturbing to see the fervor with which the legislators are pushing these things.

Senator Siplin suggests, “If you don’t like that particular license plate, you’re not forced to buy it.” But it’s not as simple as that. Even if you don’t choose to buy one, your state is still promoting Christianity, specifically, and is sponsoring the funding of religious organizations.

I’m not sure whether she intended her comment the way I’ve decided to interpret it, but Senator Larcenia Bullard, a Miami Democrat, nails it with this:

What if someone comes next year and decides to vote on something that has the devil on it, and horns, horns on each side. I know that people are called the devil, but if the symbol of a devil is on it, I would not vote for that.
Indeed. The basic problem here is that state officials are in the business of approving and disapproving designs, and their decisions come down to individual sensibilities, preferences, beliefs. Because it shouldn’t matter whether we’re talking about Jesus or the devil, a “Fightin’ Gator” or a real manatee. As I see it, the basic problem is that these specialty plates exist at all. A Republican senator from Tampa, Victor Crist, suggests small stickers that can be added to standard license plates, replacing the specialty plates and giving people the option of pushing two causes, rather than just one.

But no. The right answer is to take the state out of it completely. Stop trying to make money from people’s convictions. License plates are official devices, meant for a specific purpose that doesn’t include advertising.

All states should go back to having one standard, non-partisan license plate. Then if someone wants to save the manatees, crow about one university or another, show off one’s piety, or advertise for Cypress Gardens, one can buy an old-fashioned bumper sticker — or two, or three, or more — and slap it on the car.

Now, as the St Pete Times writer chides, legislators, get back to worrying about budget impasses and property insurance.

Sunday, April 26, 2009

.

Spring flower montage

Spring flower montage

 
Update, 28 Apr: Identifications, at the request of Laurie in the comments. If someone can identify the three missing ones (the first three), please do so in a comment here.

  1. Unidentified; click for a better view.
  2. Unidentified; click for a better view.
  3. Unidentified; click for a better view.
  4. Saucer magnolia (Magnolia x soulangiana)
  5. Shiro plum (Prunus salicina “Shiro”), with bumblebee (Bombus species)
  6. Violet (Viola species)
  7. Anemone (Anemone blanda)
  8. Forsythia (Forsythia cultivar)
  9. Cherry (Prunus cultivar)
  10. Andromeda (Pieris japonica)
  11. Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale)
  12. Grape hyacinth (Muscari armeniacum)

Saturday, April 25, 2009

.

Carnivals!

The Washington Post tells us that the current South Park episode throws a barb at Susan Boyle:

Her fan mail continues to pile up, but there are signs that Boyle fatigue might be setting in, at least for some.

Thursday night on that barometer of American social trends, the animated television show “South Park,” the character Ike wrote an expletive-laced note to his parents saying that if one more person mentioned Susan Boyle to him, he would “puke.” He was so fed up, he said, that he was running away to Somalia to become a pirate.

Earlier, the WaPo dubbed Ms Boyle “The Scot Heard Round the World”.

Which is a surer measure of success: millions of YouTube hits, or a lampooning on South Park?

Pointers to this fortnight’s blog carnivals:

Friday, April 24, 2009

.

On death and atheism

In a post from last week’s Carnival of the Godless, Jennifer contemplates the lyrics of a song. The song is called “Thoughts of a Dying Atheist”, and it prompts her to say this:

And hell, the whole reason I liked the song in the first place is because I can relate to it: death DOES scare the hell out of me. I find it morbid thinking there’s nothing after death, and I can see how comforting the afterlife is to religious people. I just can’t force myself to believe in it because I’d like it to be true.

There’s a curious difference between her approach and mine: understanding that there’s nothing after death doesn’t frighten me, and I’d find no comfort in the idea of an afterlife. I’m not afraid of death at all.

Now, don’t take that as an arrogant “Bring it on!” sort of thing. I’m not full of the machismo of “Ha! I laugh at death and spit in its face.” I’m just saying that I’m not afraid that I will die, when the time comes, and that the result will be my non-existence.

What I do fear is the suffering that often precedes death. What does make me sad is knowing that those I leave behind will be saddened by my passing. What I might regret is not having made a difference in the time I’ve had. Not having done the things I’d like to have done.

But as to the departure itself, well... if there’s nothing after, then there’s nothing to fear. In fact, it’s the idea of an afterlife that should give one pause. Was I good enough in this life, to have it good after? Was there some transgression I neglected to atone for that will land me in hell? How confident am I, really, that the wonderful afterlife is true?

For me, it’s simple: with nothing after, there’s nothing to worry about, nothing to be afraid of.

Thursday, April 23, 2009

.

The truth

Today’s guest blogger is, unwittingly, actor/writer/producer/director Ricky Gervais, creator of the TV series “The Office”, and star of the original British version. Mr Gervais was interviewed on Inside the Actors Studio in January, and I watched it last night.

There was a segment of the interview near the beginning that I particularly liked. I hope that neither Mr Gervais nor Bravo will mind my transcribing it here.

James Lipton: You’ve spoken of lessons, valuable lessons learned from your family. Apparently they were very open and very honest.

Ricky Gervais: Absolutely, yeah.

James Lipton: What are the lessons that you learned?

Ricky Gervais: That the truth doesn’t hurt. Whatever it is, it doesn’t hurt.

James Lipton: Really?

Ricky Gervais: It’s better to know the truth. I remember, my mum only lied to me about one thing. She said there was a God. And, um... But that’s because when you’re a working-class mum, Jesus is like an unpaid babysitter.

[laughter]

D’you know what I mean? It’s just sort of like, she wants you to be good. You know, the best a working-class mum where I grew up could... she wasn’t hoping I’d be a doctor or a lawyer, she hoped I wouldn’t be stabbed to death in a barroom fight, you know. So, the best thing to do is, why, if he’s God-fearing, then he’ll be good. Its a good rule of thumb.

Because, you know, I went to Sunday school from about the age of four ’til eight, it was just great teachings of Jesus. I loved Jesus. He was my superhero. He really was. God was magic, right, but Jesus was just a man. And what I loved about Jesus was he was kind. And he was brave. And I thought he was amazing. And I absolutely thought he was brilliant, right, just a brilliant guy, you know.

So I was about eight, and my brother must have been nineteen. He came in once, and I was doing something from the bible, and he said, “What are you doing?” And I said, “Oh, doing Jesus.” And he went, um, “Who’s Jesus?” And I said, “Well, he was the son of God.” He went, “Why d’you believe in God?” And my mum went, “Bob... Shut up!”

[laughter]

And I knew she had something to hide, and he was telling the truth. And I knew, I knew from body language. And then I worked it out, and I was an atheist in an hour.

[laughter]

James Lipton: In an hour?

Ricky Gervais: Yeah. It’s true. I wish there was a God. I wish there was; it would be great. What I’ve heard, he’s brilliant, you know. But I just... I can’t... you can’t believe in something you don’t. Also... if there is a God... why did he make me an atheist?

[laughter]

That was his first mistake. Well... the talking snake was his first mistake, but....

Here’s the video of the segment on YouTube. The part above starts about 4:30 into it.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

.

Infinity plus one

John Tierney has included a series of amusing puzzles, recently, in his TierneyLab blog in the New York Times. This week’s has an aspect that I’d like to talk about a bit. Here’s a shortened version of the puzzle, removing the cutesy “Russell Crowe” stuff (go look at the original for the full version):

You arrive at a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, and no vacancy. Yes, despite the infinite number of rooms, they’re all full. Still, the desk clerk does some wangling, and finds a room for you, without throwing any existing guests out nor making then share rooms. How did he do it?

I like this one in part because it touches on the sort of stuff I talked about in October, when I covered countable and uncountable sets and the concepts of cardinality and infinity.

The answer that many readers got depends upon the axiom of choice and the assumption that the number of rooms is countably infinite, but that works for the puzzle — and one can make a more rigorous solution for a more general case. So, given those additional assumptions, here’s one way to free up a room:

  1. Because the rooms are countable and we have the axiom of choice, we can number the rooms with consecutive natural numbers starting at 1: 1, 2, 3, 4, ...
  2. Ask each guest to change rooms, moving to the room with the next higher number. The guest in room n will move to room n+1.
  3. Put the new guest in the now-available room 1.
It’s an amusing little demonstration of an aspect of infinite sets. It should be clear that we can repeat this a countably infinite number of times, thus fitting a countably infinite number of new guests into our already-full hotel.

Unfortunately, some people will understand it imperfectly and turn it into some attempt to do finite arithmetic on “infinity”, as commenter PolarBearNJ does (errors as in the original, but emphasis mine):

Well, this time I did some reading before answering...the puzzle is really a question of proving the following: n = n+1. Where N = infinity. How do we prove infinity plus one?

Some solutions suggest it means doubling up the guests temporarily, adding one guest to the first room, and the 2nd person leaves for the 2nd room, repeating this infinite room shifting...

Another solutions suggests it means moving the guest in the first room to the Hallway, and then moving into the 2nd room, forcing the 2nd guest into the Hallway, repeated to infinity...

Apparently, there is no answer that adequately proves n = n+1...but I would like to hear from the Math Wizards.

The problem with PolarBearNJ’s characterization is that “infinity”, as he’s thinking about it, is not a number; it’s a concept. It doesn’t make sense to talk about “infinity plus one” in the same way as “two plus three is five”. And not all “infinities” are the same, as we saw in my October series of posts.

But when we talk about cardinal numbers and the cardinality of sets, it becomes very clear, and it’s easy to see that the mapping f(n) := n + 1 defines a one-to-one correspondence between the set of natural numbers and the set of natural numbers except 1. Both sets have cardinality aleph-null.

And we can define “addition” on cardinal numbers:
Let a be the cardinality of set A, and b be the cardinality of set B. Define a + b to be the cardinality of the set A ∪ B.

So if N is the set of natural numbers and M is the set of natural numbers except 1, our mapping above (f(n) := n + 1) shows that |M| = |N|. But since N = M ∪ {1}, that means that |M| = |M| + |{1}|, or aleph-null = aleph-null + 1.

Which is sort of what PolarBearNJ was getting at, but not strictly the same thing. We should avoid talking about “infinity” as though it were a number.

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

.

E-II-R at 83

Queen Elizabeth II in 2007On this date in 1926, Elizabeth Alexandra Mary [Windsor] was born in London. You might call her “Elizabeth, Jr”, because her mum was called Elizabeth as well. And there was no thought of her becoming Queen, then. Her uncle Edward had that right, being older than his brother Albert — her father — and Edward’s heirs would inherit the throne from there.

And, indeed, when Elizabeth was ten, Uncle Edward became King Edward VIII, on the death of his father, Elizabeth’s grandfather. No surprise there. The surprise came within the year, though. It’s often said that Edward abdicated his throne because his impending marriage to Wallis Simpson, an American — and, so, not of noble blood — gave him no choice. The truth is that the proposed union caused a political upset at the highest levels. Rather than see the government fall into resignations and a disruptive general election, Edward, who could have stood his ground and remained king, chose to step down.

That put Edward’s eldest brother, Albert, Duke of York, on the throne. Interestingly, he chose the royal name George VI, to draw support through his father, even though he had a younger brother called George. So there was King George, and Prince George. Well, I think people figured out who was who.

This put Elizabeth next in line for the throne, as the heir presumptive — “presumptive”, not “apparent”, because if George VI should have a son, she would be bumped into second place.

But George VI did not have a son, and a 25-year-old Elizabeth became queen in early 1952. Her 57-year reign (so far) is a long one, but not yet the longest. George III — the king from whom we wrested our independence — ruled for 59 years, and Victoria held on for more than 63 years.

 

Today is also the birthday of my friend and colleague, and occasional commenter to these pages, Jim Fenton. Happy birthday, Jim.

Monday, April 20, 2009

.

Japanese erasers?

As if it were needed, here’s more evidence that I’m fairly clueless about current pop culture. I can watch a TV series like Life on Mars and know every song on it, including all the words. I can remember clearly when Shoop Shoop Hula Hoops, Super Balls, and Pet Rocks were new.Sign, 'Now In: Japanese Erasers'

But Pokémon completely passed me by. And the first time I heard Paris Hilton’s name, I thought they were talking about a hotel in the French capital.[1] Really.

And so it was when I saw the sign over there on the right (click for full size). Why, I wondered, are Japanese erasers different from those from any other country? And why should I be excited that the store now had them? And how many people need erasers any more? Don’t we do everything on computers?

Happily, Google now erases (um, sorry) all ignorance. A quick search produced this page, among many others. Indeed; one doesn’t use these erasers, at least not to erase anything. One collects them; one treasures them. Consider this gem, from the aforelinked page:

There was a time when one dollar cannot buy much of value, but now that one dollar can be a best quality Japanese Iwako eraser, a little pocket pet to be with you 24 hours a day. You don’t need to be rich or powerful, all it takes is one dollar to have a true friend to be with you wherever you go. You can save up another dollar to get a new companion for your little eraser pet.

A new companion. You wouldn’t want just one, lonely eraser, would you? That’d be... heartless.

I can, though, connect all this stuff about erasers back to my own cultural awareness, through the lyrics of Bill Horowitz, and make those much younger than I go running to Google for a history lesson:

If I had a friend like Miss Rosemary Woods,
How simple my life would be.
I’d just give all my problems to Rosemary Woods
And she would erase them for me.


[1] Yes, yes, I know better now, though I rather wish I didn’t.

Saturday, April 18, 2009

.

Minuscule

Minuscule, minuscule, minuscule, minuscule, minuscule.

It is not spelled “miniscule”.

Thank you. I feel better now. Carry on.

Friday, April 17, 2009

.

On XML

In his keynote talk at IDtrust2009 on Tuesday, Dan Blum made this comment about OpenID:

One reason it’s popular is that it’s pretty easy to implement — it’s not even XML.

XML is perhaps one of the most misunderstood pieces of the standards repertoire.

On the one hand, there’s an assumption that “it’s in XML” means that it’s somehow “standard”. What’s true here is that the raw data format is standard, so a standard parser can be used to pull the semantic bits out of the data. But understanding the semantics of those bit and making sense out of them requires some other definition on top of that. Without, say, a defined standard schema, along with a document that explains how to use the information that you can extract, the XML is useless.

On the other hand, I commonly hear that “XML is slow,” “XML is too complicated,” and, related to Dan’s comment, “XML is hard to use.”

It doesn’t have to be any of those. There are reasonably efficient XML parsers available. You can write your own, of course, if you think you can do better. But the beauty of using a standard language is that you don’t have to. Instead, you can spend your effort writing code that deals with the semantics — the code that actually does the work. To my mind, that makes it easier to use than custom languages, not harder.

It’s being “too complicated,” though, well, that’s arguable. It certainly does look complicated to the eye. On the other hand, it’s actually quite simply defined, and, while an XML document can be a lot to look at, it is readily readable by a human, not just by a computer (in contrast with, say, ASN.1).

What’s also true about XML is that it’s often presented as the solution to every problem. The over-exposure that causes puts some people off; some object to any proposal that a new thing be done in XML... opposing some others, who propose XML for everything.

XML isn’t for everything, but it’s great for some things... and it’s not “hard to use.”

Thursday, April 16, 2009

.

IDtrust panel on applications

Tuesday’s panel session titled “What Is Special About My Application?” at the IDtrust2009 symposium was interesting, and went well. Its goal was to explore key security/privacy/identity issues in some online applications, looking at the significant challenges and what might be needed in research and standardization. Five panelists gave brief introductory presentations, which we followed with some Q&A/panel discussion.

The applications were these:

  1. Health care (Walter G. Suarez, Institute for HIPAA/HIT Education and Research)
  2. Electronic voting (Andrew Regenscheid, NIST)
  3. Social networks (Barry Leiba, Internet Messaging Technology)
  4. Putting government online (Bob Sunday, Government of Canada)
  5. Cloud computing (Stephen Whitlock, Boeing)

There were some good questions about ownership of data and services in computing clouds, about privacy in social networks, and about health-care and voting issues. Not surprisingly, there are security and privacy concerns that are unique to each application, in addition to those common to all.

One interesting observation came from the session’s moderator, Tim Polk of NIST: that legal issues come up in most of these, leaving us with questions of how the law will work with the technology to protect users’ interests.
 

On Wednesday we had a good session about browser security. Anil Saldhana of Red Hat talked about recent changes in browser security features, as well as about an upcoming W3C security recommendation for browsers. David Chadwick of the University of Kent previewed a paper that will be in a conference next month, showing how well browsers conform to the X.509 specification as to how they handle validation of certificates.

The bottom line of Professor Chadwick’s tables is that most browsers warn and query the user when they encounter server certificates that look suspicious to them. Asking the user what to do is bad: most users are unqualified to answer the question, and, because what the user wants to do is visit the web site, the only answer most users will give is "accept the suspicious certificate."

The session spurred an interesting discussion, going from authentication mechanisms to social engineering by “bad guy” web sites (spoofing the padlock symbol, for instance). I said that browsers should never ask users to approve security exceptions, and that we have to set up recommendations that move us toward refusal to allow web sites to use faulty certificates. Someone noted that “extended validation certificates” (EV Certs), which now result in a green area next to the address bar, are really what all certificates should have been from the beginning, and that existing (non-EV) certs are largely useless.
 

Slides from all the panelists and from the other sessions are available on the symposium program page

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

.

On customer loyalty programs

In this post, Liz at Everyday Goddess notes that she prefers American Airlines to Southwest for a number of reasons, and is willing to pay more for a ticket on the former. One of her reasons is that she’s accumulating miles on AA’s frequent flyer program and plans to use those miles to get a free trip to Florida this August.

I’ve heard people say that sort of thing often, and it is, of course, why the loyalty programs are there: the airlines (and hotel chains, and so on) hope you’ll do business with them, even to the point of paying more, because you want the benefits the loyalty program provides.

But, while that sounds reasonable on the surface, it doesn’t make much sense when you look at it more closely. I said this in a comment on Liz’s blog, but I wanted to bring it here, too, because it’s so common.

In general, you should not pay more for a flight because you want the miles. Here’s why, using Liz’s example:

LAX (Los Angeles) to ORD (Chicago O’Hare) gives you about 3500 miles, round trip. Let’s say that the AA flight cost $100 more. That means those miles cost you around 3 cents per mile extra (2.857 cents, more precisely) — you didn't get them for free. You need at least 25,000 miles for a "free" ticket (or 50,000, depending upon when you want to do and what restrictions you have). At $0.03/mile, it will cost you $750 for 25,000 miles (and $1500 for 50,000).

I just priced an AA ticket from LAX to FLL (Fort Lauderdale, FL) in mid-August, and I got a fare of $265. Spending miles that cost you $750 extra to “earn”, to buy a ticket that would cost under $300 over the counter, is not a good deal.

And this is almost always the case. If you select your airline based on a desire to accumulate miles there, on the whole you will pay far more than the miles are worth. In general, you should select your airline for other reasons (price, flight schedule, on-time record, seat comfort, like or dislike of the way they do business, or whatever matters to you), sign up for every airline’s loyalty program, and let the miles accumulate all around. When one program has enough miles for you to redeem them, then you really will get a free flight out of it.

To be sure, there are times when it’s worth paying a little extra, but it’s important to think about it and do it in an informed way. For example, suppose you’ve amassed 48,000 miles on AA and were careful not to pay extra for them. And you want to redeem miles for a trip soon, but you need 2,000 more. Then it could make sense to pay an extra $100 or $200 to buy your next ticket on AA, so that you have enough for, say, a $500 ticket somewhere. Similarly, you might be willing to pay a little more occasionally to keep your account active, so your existing miles won’t expire.

So if you have other reasons to prefer one airline over another, by all means, let those reasons decide for you. But be wary of doing it because of the frequent-flyer program.

Tuesday, April 14, 2009

.

Security and Social Networking

I’ll be presenting these slides at the 8th Symposium on Identity and Trust on the Internet this afternoon, as part of a panel discussion. PDF version here.

Monday, April 13, 2009

.

Should your car door refuse to open?

Here’s an interesting new idea: “intelligent” car doors. Or, at least, cautious ones:

Accidents caused by car doors being opened into the path of oncoming vehicles or cyclists are common in cities. But these incidents could become a thing of the past, if doors that react to potential impacts catch on.

[...]

However, if sensors detect a nearby obstacle at the same time as an accelerometer detects an attempt to open the door, the door’s swing is restricted by a linear motor attached to the bar.

To pass on more information to the user, the amount of door resistance is in proportion to the proximity of an object — for example, you might swing a door halfway open without problems before it gets stiffer as it nears a lamp post.

It’s an interesting concept, and I can see the real value in it. I just have two concerns.

One is whether it can detect an approaching vehicle in time to prevent the door’s being opened in front of it when the vehicle is going at, say, 30 or 35 miles per hour. That’s a likely scenario on many of the streets I drive along that have parallel parking at the curb. Even moreso, can it detect a small vehicle, such as a bicycle, at 30 MPH (not unreasonable if the road is downhill)?

I wonder whether people might come to rely on such a feature, and not be as careful to look before opening, depending upon the smart door to watch out for trouble.

The second concern is one of personal safety. Will this protect the door at the expense of the occupant? I can foresee the door’s deciding not to open because of an obstacle, at a time when the driver is trying to open it quickly to get out in an emergency situation. Suppose the car is afire, or an attacker has hidden in the back seat... imagine some situation where delaying you a few seconds while you fight with the “smart” door can be very costly indeed.

The problem with this sort of artificial intelligence is exactly that it’s artificial. It deals only with aspects that are part of its model. Human intelligence can quickly analyze unexpected situations and decide that the danger of staying in the car outweighs the issue of crashing the door into the garbage can you parked too close to. Computer “intelligence” can’t yet deal with that sort of decision.

Sunday, April 12, 2009

.

Le sacre du printemps

Saturday, April 11, 2009

.

Carnivals!

Recent spam message subject line:

Virtual Sax can not be compared with real pleasure!
Well, I should say not! One can’t get real pleasure from virtual saxophones. Music is a very particular thing.

Pointers to this fortnight’s blog carnivals:

Friday, April 10, 2009

.

Aye, Captain!

It’s easy to find, on and through the Internet, a great many people with, as I like to put it, more time than sense. The New York Times has recently introduced us to a bunch of men — yes, all men — for whom we can add “or style.” They fancy themselves as Captain Kirk, from Star Trek.

Now, we’re not talking, here, about guys who like to go to Star Trek conventions dressed as the captain. We’re not talking about people who open their flip-phones as if they were communicators and say, “Beam me up, Scotty,” because they think it’s funny. These people don’t carry around tricorders. Well, or maybe they do, but that’s not the point.

The point is that each of them has a Captain Kirk command chair. An ugly, boxy chair like the one on the bridge of the Enterprise. With buttons and such.

In their living rooms.

There is nothing particularly unusual about the living room of the two-story town house that Scott Veazie shares with his wife in Washougal, Wash., except for one piece of furniture in a corner: a full-size replica of the captain’s chair from the bridge of the U.S.S. Enterprise, as seen in the original “Star Trek” television series.

They take this stuff seriously, too, researching the style, and arguing about who got it right. And, here, well, let them speak for themselves:

“Every once in a while I’ll play a ‘Star Trek’ video game in front of the chair and pretend I’m in command of the fleet,” Mr. Sturgeon said. “But by this time I’m so used to it that it’s just like any other chair. Maybe I feel like I’m in command of the house.”

“You sit in the chair,” Mike Paugh said, “and you’re watching an episode and pushing buttons and you find yourself saying, Fire photon torpedoes or whatever, and you’re making the sounds yourself because I don’t have the sound effects yet.”

Uh-huh. Yet.

To be fair, I used to pretend I was Captain Kirk, too.

When I was twelve.

Their wives seem to shake their heads about it, but find it harmless enough. Here’s a fairly kind response, I think:

“Personally,” said his wife, Barbara, “I think my husband is a nerd.”

Thursday, April 09, 2009

.

“Anonymous” data is not

Some researchers from University of Texas at Austin have done an interesting study (PDF here), which will be presented at next month’s IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy. They took anonymized information about the Twitter social network. They took full (not anonymized) information about the Flickr network, knowing that there was some (but relatively small) overlap of users between the two networks. And they used the latter to analyze the former... and to identify many of the users in the “anonymized” Twitter network.

Here’s the paper’s abstract:

Operators of online social networks are increasingly sharing potentially sensitive information about users and their relationships with advertisers, application developers, and data-mining researchers. Privacy is typically protected by anonymization, i.e., removing names, addresses, etc.

We present a framework for analyzing privacy and anonymity in social networks and develop a new re-identification algorithm targeting anonymized social network graphs. To demonstrate its effectiveness on real world networks, we show that a third of the users who can be verified to have accounts on both Twitter, a popular microblogging service, and Flickr, an online photo-sharing site, can be re-identified in the anonymous Twitter graph with only a 12% error rate.

Our de-anonymization algorithm is based purely on the network topology, does not require creation of a large number of dummy “sybil” nodes, is robust to noise and all existing defenses, and works even when the overlap between the target network and the adversary’s auxiliary information is small.

Note that last paragraph, in particular: they did not use any information from the tweets themselves, nor from the Flickr photos... only data about who was connected to whom. And it worked even though there wasn’t terribly much overlap between the networks. A relatively small amount of cross-network information allowed them to find the common points and to identify many of the users.

This is related to the issue a couple of years ago, when AOL released anonymized search data, and people were identified by it.

The message is that aggregated information exposes us, and that simply removing some identifying information is not enough. Put another way, it says that when we aggregate information, it’s more identifying than we realize.

This is important because we often “remove personally identifiable information” without understanding how personally identifiable the result is. Courts have held to this, and sometimes have required that such “anonymized” information be made available. Companies make demographic information available all the time. The government obtained who-called-whom information from the telephone companies — information that’s exactly analogous to the social-network graphs that the University of Texas researchers had from Flickr. What else can they glean from such a rich oracle of social-network connections, when that’s added to other data that we previously considered “safe” from a privacy standpoint?

These researchers have shown us how careful we have to be, considering how easy it is to collect various pieces of information and putting them together into a whole that’s far more than the sum of the parts.

Tuesday, April 07, 2009

.

Science Talent Search

About a month ago, the winners were announced for the 2009 Intel Science Talent Search. As is usual, several of the top-40 finalists (four, this year, 10%) came from a dueling pair of New York City schools, Stuyvesant High School and Bronx High School of Science. This year, they tied with two each.

1974 Westinghouse Science Talent Search Honors Group booklet coverI have a personal interest in this, because when I was a high-school senior — 35 years ago, at age 16 — I submitted an abstract-mathematics paper for the 1974 competition, then the Westinghouse Science Talent Search. I was thrilled that it made the semifinals (top 300 papers), and only somewhat disappointed that it didn’t get into the finals (top 40). Two of my classmates at Nova High School in Davie, Florida, also made it into the top 300 “Honors Group”: Jim Azar (now deceased), “Unique Quadrant Graphs and Theoretical Postulates Concerning Psychological Mathematization”; and Steve Peretz, “Aerodynamic Stability Induced by Gyration”. There were at least three other papers submitted that year from Nova, a school that strongly emphasized math and science.

As it turns out, in a search last week for something else, through some old things, I unearthed a photocopy of my paper — perhaps the only extant copy — along with related memorabilia (congratulatory letters from my senators and congressman, and such). I scanned the copy and turned it into a PDF: A Characterization of Divisible Abelian Groups.

The scan brings us back to the technology of the time. The paper was typed on an old, manual typewriter, complete with irregular lines of letters (the hammers didn’t line up perfectly; a higher quality machine would have done better). I had to leave space to hand-write the mathematical symbols. At the top of page 3, I left in a hand-written correction, not wanting to re-type the whole page. And, of course, the idea that one might easily archive this stuff in a PDF file (which I could download to my BlackBerry and read, if I should want to) was unimaginable science fiction in 1974.

The paper itself is something I’m still proud of (obviously; I’m writing about it now), but in retrospect I’m a little surprised that it made the semifinals. It’s not new work. It’s original work of mine, but I’d call it my own survey of existing work. I didn’t prove any theorems that hadn’t already been proved. I didn’t have any new ideas that hadn’t already been published.

On the other hand, I was a 16-year-old doing graduate-level mathematics. And the Science Talent Search people were probably looking for a few mathematics papers to include in what’s mostly slanted toward the hard sciences.

I also have to thank my high school math teacher, Larry Insel, who taught me so excellently, who pushed me to get my paper done and entered, and who helped steer my education in many ways. He always humbly said that it was all me, but I wouldn’t have gone where I’d gone without him. I was very pleased when, last summer, Mr Insel found me online and got in touch with me again.

I hope my readers will forgive this self-indulgent post. Now go read the stuff about this year’s finalists and winners, some of whom will be making scientific breakthroughs 15 or 20 or 30 years from now. And thank their Mr Insels for helping them along.

Monday, April 06, 2009

.

André!

André PrevinAndré Previn was born in Berlin 80 years ago today. He got his start in Hollywood, composing and arranging for films when he was not yet 20. Since then, he’s composed, performed (he’s an accomplished pianist), and conducted music of various kinds, from classical to jazz. He has four Academy Awards for his film work, and several Grammy Awards for recordings of his playing and conducting.

Previn’s been married five times, most recently to violinist Anne-Sophie Mutter, 34 years younger than he. They divorced in 2006, but still work together from time to time, and she’ll be playing his piano trio with him and cellist Lynn Harrell later this month at Carnegie Hall. She’ll also be the soloist with Previn conducting two of his own concertos.

And tomorrow, Mr Previn will be both the soloist and conductor in a Mozart piano concerto, also at Carnegie Hall. (Alas, I won’t be seeing any of these concerts.)

Some of my favourite Previn recordings:

Happy 80th birthday, André Previn.
 


Update, 7 April: Brian points out, in private mail, that Mr Previn’s most well known TV appearance was a comic sketch on this episode of Morecambe and Wise from 1971. I’d heard of it, but not seen it, and I didn’t think it’d be on YouTube, so I didn’t check. But there it is; enjoy. And thanks, Brian.

Sunday, April 05, 2009

.

Lions on Madagascar?

On my recent flight home from San Francisco, the movie shown on the plane was Madagascar: Escape 2 Africa. I haven’t seen the popular Madagascar films, and I didn’t watch the one on the plane, except to glance up at it from time to time. I noted that some of the main characters are lions and zebras.

Hm, said I, lions do not live on Madagascar, at least not wild ones. Nor do zebras. Madagascar is an island, the fourth largest in the world. The wild lions and zebras in Africa had no way to migrate from the mainland to the island off the coast of Mozambique (where these animals do, indeed, live in the wild).

Though the Bronx Zoo has renovated the old Lion House as a Madagascar wildlife exhibit, there’s no connection between Madagascar and lions (and there are no lions in the new Madagascar house in the Bronx — lemurs, fossas, crocodiles, and other animals, but no lions, and no zebras).

But I suppose that lions also do not speak and are not bipedal, so I shouldn’t be too picky about points of habitat, should I?

 
Barry writes 100 times:

I will stop being such a pedant.
I will stop being such a pedant.
I will stop being ...

Saturday, April 04, 2009

.

Binghamton

Otherwise known only for the SUNY campus in nearby Vestal, Binghamton, NY has been in the news since yesterday. It’s a horrible situation, of which I have only one further comment.

Initial reports had the shooter identified as an ex-IBM employee, who’d recently been laid off. But it’s not clear that that’s true. The L.A. Times says this:

Binghamton Mayor Matthew Ryan, who described Friday as “the most tragic day in Binghamton history,” said the gunman reportedly had been laid off from his job nearby at IBM. “I believe he was trying to get assistance [at the center] for obtaining employment,” Ryan said.

“The word was he lost his job and was pretty distraught. ... If the story checks out, it’s obvious that he was very concerned about being unemployed and not dealing with it well.”

An IBM employee said Jiverly Wong did not work at IBM.

...and this is from the Lede Blog in the N.Y. Times, which has been following the story with regular updates:
Updated | 7:05 p.m. There seems to be a mix-up about the alleged shooter, whose name police are still not releasing.

Representative Maurice Hinchey, whose district includes Binghamton, had told The New York Times and The Associated Press that the alleged shooter had been laid off from I.B.M. But a person familiar with the I.B.M. plant in Johnson City tells us that the alleged shooter did not work for I.B.M.

There is someone with the same last name as the alleged shooter who does contract work at the plant, the person said, but that worker was at the plant all day today and has not been laid off.

Even if it were true that the man was recently laid off, it would in no sense be the company’s fault, even a little, that this happened. We’re all responsible for our own actions, and “Look what you made me do!”, hasn’t worked since we were five years old.

The man, whoever he is, was sadly disturbed, and it’s terrible that he had to take at least 13 others, people who had done nothing to him at all, out with him.

Friday, April 03, 2009

.

High-tech at the top

Technology has certainly made its way to the leaders of the world. We heard a great deal, in January, about President Obama’s fight to keep his BlackBerry. Well, the other day I saw a news video of him speaking to reporters in London, and one could hear the characteristic sound of a mobile phone interfering with the audio system.

And also while the Obamas were in London, we heard that they gave the queen an iPod as a house gift. Reports are that she already has one, but this will be unique: it’s loaded with photos from her 2007 U.S. trip. Of course, one might presume that she already has plenty of those, too, but, well, it’s the thought that counts.

One could say that, too, for what she gave the Obamas, of course: the same (low-tech) autographed photo of herself that she gives to all VIPs who visit.

Thursday, April 02, 2009

.

Myths about Germany

I’m looking forward to my usual square dance trip to Germany in May, and as I think about it, and as I look for some light blogging, I thought I might talk about a few myths about Germany that seem to be common (certainly not universal, of course) belief in the U.S.

Myth 1: They always put the verb at the end of the sentence.

German verbs are sometimes put at the end of the sentence, but not always. It depends upon the construction of the particular sentence. For example, to say, “I’m going to the bank,” you’d say “Ich gehe zur Bank”, which, literally translated, says, “I go to the bank.”[1] If you then ask my friend if he’s going with me, you might say, “Gehst du mit?”, using the separable verb mitgehen. The verbs certainly aren’t at the ends of the sentences here.

But you might say, “Möchten Sie zur Bank gehen?”, meaning “Do you want to go to the bank?” But the literal translation of that would be “Do you want to the bank to go?” Here, the verb is at the end of the sentence.

So, it depends.

Myth 2: Their words are so long because they tack all the adjectives onto the word.

Not the adjectives, but the attributive nouns — nouns that are used to modify other nouns.

So, a small, red room is “ein kleiner roter Raum”. Nice, short words. On the other hand, a heating-oil storage room — note all those attributive nouns — is “ein Heizöllagerraum”, and the word length starts to build.

So, yes, it’s true that many of their words are long; not because of the adjectives, but because of the attributive nouns. I once saw a package of sanitizing bathroom cleaner, where the word for what it was had to wrap all the way around the box because it was too long to fit on one side.

What is also true is that they use these umlauts that make their words nearly unpronounceable to most Americans.

Myth 3: They don’t have any speed limits on the roads over there!

There most certainly are speed limits on most of the roads. It’s only the Autobahn — the equivalent to the U.S. Interstate highway system, and the Motorways in the U.K. — that eschew speed limits, and only on the parts of those that are well away from busy areas.

As you approach population centers on the Autobahn, you’ll see signs slowing you down, first to 130kph (about 80mph), then to 100kph (60mph or so), and then perhaps to 80 (50). And you leave the busy area, the limits will be staged up again, until you see the sign you’re looking for: the speed limit number (or sometimes just a blank circle) with a gray slash across it. That means you’re on a section with no speed limit, and you can stand on the accelerator if you like.

Many a time, my host would be speeding along in the left lane, passing slow-pokes who were crawling to our right... and I’d realize that those “slow-pokes” were “crawling” at 85 miles per hour, and that we were doing 110mph or so. Not something we Americans are used to.

Also, not only do they have speed limits, but they’re enforced with randomly placed speed cameras. You’re never sure where they’ll turn up until you notice the tell-tale tiny red flash. By that time, it’s too late, and you’ll most likely get a speeding ticket in the mail soon (unless the camera’s memory is full; you can hope), resulting in a fine or suspension of your license, depending upon your driving record. Just like here.

Myth 4: You must get out of the way of other drivers or it’s your fault.

The way this is usually posed is that if you’re on the Autobahn and you’re in the left lane, and someone zooms up behind you, he can just plough into you and the collision will be considered your fault, not his.

This is, of course, stupidly silly. There may be countries where that’s the way they actually drive, law or not, but Germany isn’t one of them. People will certainly be annoyed with you if you drive “slowly” in the left lane (see above for the discussion of what “slowly” might mean), and the law does say you have to move over to let them pass (you can indeed be fined for moseying along in the left lane). But, no, get real: they’re not allowed to crash your car with impunity. Quite the opposite, someone going more than 130kph who is involved in a collision will likely be considered at least partially responsible. You can drive fast, but you have to be careful.
 


[1] English is rather strange, in that we don’t use the simple present tense (“I go”) to talk about what’s happening in the present. Instead, we use the present progressive (“I am going”) for that, and “I go” is used in sentences like “I go to the store twice a week,” and “I go to that school over there.” In that, English differs from most European languages, which is why foreign speakers are likely to ask things like, “What do you eat?”, when they mean, “What are you eating [now]?”, and they’re puzzled when the answer they get is, “Pretty much anything except liver and anchovies.”

Wednesday, April 01, 2009

.

Expectation of privacy in the Internet age

In a very good essay, computer security expert Bruce Schneier discusses “Privacy and the Fourth Amendment”, with a particular look at the legal concept of expectation of privacy. He brings up a point that I hadn’t heard before: that the concept is in a destructive feedback loop.

Expectation of privacy is one of the measures a court uses in deciding whether one’s privacy has been violated. If one reasonably had an expectation of privacy, the stage is set for deciding in one’s favour in an invasion-of-privacy case. When we talk on the phone, we have an expectation of privacy for our telephone conversations. When we converse in a café, we do not have the same expectation. And what about when we’re online?

But the government has attacked these expectations. For anyone who’s read the news about the Bush administration’s warrantless wiretaps, the NSA’s collection of phone-call data, and other abuses... can there still be any expectation of privacy? Could a defense attorney point to the widespread news reports and then say that we should have known, that we can no longer have an expectation of privacy?

In other words, the more our privacy is violated, the less privacy we can expect, so the more we can then be violated. It’s a scary thought, and Bruce continues the point to our Internet activities.

Read Bruce’s essay; it’s interesting.