smokerblog

Presidental Debates, Round 1

Ding!

No fisticuffs though, per the rules of the debate.

Acceptable Risk

I had an interesting discussion today at work with our IT Director about our email spam filter. It seems that people were complaining when critical emails weren't getting through because of stringent filtering settings. The perception is that email should be 100% reliable at all times, but this alternative would lead to inboxes stuffed with potentially virus-laden spam, itself an extreme inconvenience. So where to draw the line between an acceptable amount of delayed or deleted important emails vs. the convenience of spam- and virus-free workstations? Should we strive for an email system email that is safe, secure, and 100%-reliable? What does 100%-reliable mean? Are you willing to risk your life based on the outcome of an email transfer? How about $1,000,000? How about a 1% chance of losing $1,000,000? How much are we willing to spend in order to make it so?

Actuaries literally make a career out of these kinds of statistics-crunching risk evaluations. In everyday life, we all have an inner actuary buried somewhere in our brains that also makes these decisions for us, so that we don't have to sweat the details. I have no evidence that tells me that the tap water flowing into my kitchen sink is not laced with poisons, yet I drink it when I get thirsty. My inner actuary determines this is okay based on previous experience and that to test every single glass I drink would be an inordinate hassle for an infinitesimal risk. Trouble is, that inner actuary is often easily swayed by emotion, mob mentality, or fermented beverages.

My favorite example along these lines is from a book written by one of my college professors. In the appendix of his book Retreat from Doomsday: The Obsolescence of Major War, John Mueller poses a hypothetical situation:

Suppose an engineering firm came up tomorrow with an amazing new form of transportation. People would step inside a booth, dial a location, and then be taken apart atom by atom and transmitted over wires to the desired location where they would be reassembled. After thoroughly testing the new device for safety, the firm has concluded that the overwhelming majority of trips would be utterly without incident...Unfortunately, in a very tiny percentage of trips, things would go wrong and the traveller would never rematerialize. Injuries from minor contusions to paralysis would also occasionally occur. The total: probably not much more per year than 50,000 deaths and 2 million or so disabling injuries...Should we install a system with costs like that?

Of course, except for the "transmitted over wires" part (how quaintly 1980's), Prof. Mueller is talking about the private passenger automobile. Every day people risk their lives by climbing into their cars to go to work, visit friends, or pick up some milk, yet more people are afraid of flying than driving in a car despite the best statistics. We are also regularly reminded of the tragic human cost of the war in Iraq, yet more Americans die in a two-week period driving their cars than died in Iraq since the war started.

This is where our inner actuaries fail us. We tend to ignore statistics and often follow emotional cues rather than logic. We Americans love our cars, we love the freedom cars provide and we love to drive fast. And all that is fine. But as long as we continue to insist on this freedom, we should be mindful of the price we are paying.

Virtually Alive

Via Planned Obslescence

The body of a Canadian man was discovered in his home just a few weeks ago. Medical examiners determined that Jim Sulkers, 53, of Winnipeg had died in his sleep sometime in November 2002.

Yes, 2002.

First off, his neighbors assumed that the man, something of a recluse, estranged from his family and with few friends, had been on an extended vacation. Second, he suffered from a medical condition that prevented his body from decomposing in the typically smelly way. But what could potentially have left his body undiscovered indefinitely were his automatic bill payments. His monthly disability pension was direct-deposited into his banking account and all of his bills, including rent and utilities, were automatically deducted each month.

Sad as it is, Sulkers' tale illuminates a chilling fact: that new technologies like electronic banking have created a system in which it's possible to become so physically disengaged from the day-to-day administration of your own affairs that your life can effectively go on without you, perhaps indefinitely. "For many practical purposes, this man was virtually alive throughout that time," says Terence Moran, professor of Media Ecology at New York University...

This may be taking things a little to far, but there is little doubt that technology is increasingly embedded into our daily lives. Soon, we will be able to take this quite literally. Well, actually, the future may already be here. In fact, our dogs have microchips embedded in the skin between their shoulder blades now. If they ever get lost and are brought to a shelter, they will simply be "scanned" to determine that we are the owners.

Along with the sad story of Mr. Sulkers, today I heard of a recently completed study of people who agreed to give up internet access for two weeks. Researchers conducting the Internet Deprivation Study found that their test subjects "experienced withdrawal and feelings of loss, frustration, and disconnectedness" when forced to use such mundane devices as the phone, postage stamps, or the yellow pages.

Sure, technology can insulate people from the outside world, but it can also bring people together. You are reading this weblog for instance, there's email and instant messaging and the ubiquitous cellphone, not to mention the countless dogs being reunited with their owners. Embrace the technology. Reach out to others. Avoid Mr. Sulkers' lonely fate.

Happy Birthday to Me

My wife, aka the conniving liar, threw a surprise party for my 35th birthday yesterday. And yes, George, we all know: that rounds up to 40. And it was indeed a surprise as I stood in my front yard, grimy from raking and mowing, watching the convoy of guests drive up. Sneaky bastards, the lot of them.

But the party was a ton of fun, thanks to the hard work of Kari and friends (basically everyone except me). Of course, Buddy and Sam were the centers of attention. For those who marveled at Buddy's non-stop ball-chasing fixation, here's evidence that he does occasionally sit still.

Thanks everyone! I should turn 35 more often!

Reasons for Race

Why is the man on the left of this picture described as "black" while the two on the right are described as "white?" Assuming that there is a reason for everything, why do humans rely so heavily on such fuzzy concepts as racial identity?

Richard Dawkins in an article adapted from his recent book explores this question. Despite the almost universally agreed upon view that "racial classification can be actively destructive of social and human relations," racially classification must have some cultural and/or genetic utility in human evolution. Dawkins proposes two competing explanations for this. On one hand is the strict cultural explanation where mates were selected based on distinctive genetic markers. The other view is that geographic separation and natural selection (warm-climate cultures developed melanin-rich skin, for example) initially set the stage for racial differences which cultural selection then accelerated.

The second view is a more hopeful. As long as we can recognize the accidental nature of the initial racial separation, we can reject the legacy of cultural differentiation and racial discrimination that has plagued our recent history.

(By recent, I of course mean our entire recorded history.)

Browsing Done Right

One of the problems with using a browser that has a built in Google search bar, is that you don't get to see the holiday logos that Google uses to spruce up their search page. For instance, today Google celebrated Ray Charles' birthday (if you missed it, there's an archive).

Now, if that's not the worst thing you can say about your browser, then it's time to switch. Mac OS X users who have clung to Internet Explorer are suffering needless pain and frustration. Use Safari instead. It's already installed. Trust me, it's great.

Or try Firefox. Our PC friends should check it out too. Tabbed windows, pop-up ad blocking, better security, etc., all spell hassle-free browsing. But wait, what's this? Rumor has it, Google may be constructing their own browser as well. Hmmm.

Bottom line, there are plenty of non-IE options available, including the text-only lynx. Heh, I'm kidding. But hey, just for fun, here's how the smokerblog looks in lynx:

Spiffy, eh?

Air America Comes to Rochester

Last Friday, at 950 on the AM dial, WROC-AM (formerly WBBF) began airing select Air America programming. Rochester now has an alternative to Bob Lonsberry and Rush Limbaugh. Actually, the station did a flip-flop, replacing Sean Hannity, Dr. Laura, and Bill O'Reilly (whoops, sorry. wrong link) with the liberal Air America lineup.

But wait. Before you accuse the management of WROC of either seeing the light or losing their minds, consider the business angle. In the Byzantine world of radio ratings, the demographics are constantly sliced and shaved as the Entercoms and ClearChannels of the world wrestle for market share. Local AM radio personality Bob Smith provides a reasonable market-savvy explanation for this switch.

It's all designed to pull just enough listenership away from WHAM to solidify the leadership position of Entercom's WBEE atop the 12+ and 25-54 standings in the market (along with the extra national spot business that a market leader gets).

In any case, I doubt this move will draw my listening attention away from WXXI for any extended period of time, but it gives me a listenable alternative during WXXI's fundraising drives. BTW, for a fascinating look at the inside world of radio-land, check out this bulletin board, frequented by radio professionals and fans, covering markets and listening formats across the country.

New Photoblog Entry

In an effort to resuscitate my languishing photo blog, I've posted there about our visit to the George Eastman House on Sunday, specifically the Jeff Bridges exhibit. For those who are impatiently waiting for me to develop the 30+ rolls of film I've been neglecting for the past 6 months, I've got some new chemistry on the way, so I should be in the basement darkroom in full mad photographer mode soon.

Earworm of the Day

Take Me Out - Franz Ferdinand

From their self-titled debut.

The Plot Thickens

Ugh. I knew I shouldn't have gotten involved in this. Nathan has posted some comments making a couple of good points re: how closely a basic Microsoft Word rendering of the TANG memo matches the original.

Except I stand by what I say, Fygar's comments notwithstanding, a font is a font. I didn't say fonts were identical across all applications, but they are very close. I've been in the printing industry for over ten years and I know the nightmare of having conflicting versions of a font or improper leading reflow text off the bottom of the page minutes beffore a job is supposed to hit the press. But that is supposed to be the exception, not the norm.

UPDATE (9/13/04):
Now, Nathan is right, once the margins are correctly adjusted, the leading (the space between lines) in Word is suspiciously close to the TANG memo. But I'm still not entirely convinced, especially when you take a look at the letterforms up close. JuliusBlog makes this case better than I can (or care to).

So again, what does this prove? Nothing. Except maybe another theory to throw on the growing inferno. Perhaps the memo was forged, but in a more basic text editor with more primitive linespacing than Word, and then distorted in the vertical dimension through repeated photocopying. Or maybe that "basic text editor" was an IBM Selectric typewriter set to doublespace instead of single space.

Blech. I am now about 75% convinced that the documents were forged. JuliusBlog's analysis was done from a screen grab, not from an actual printed output from MS Word. Looking at one of my examples, they are close enough that the distorted letterforms could have been a result of repeated photocopying. What I say below still holds.
END UPDATE

So that's all I plan to contribute to this. As I said last night, I don't really care whether the documents were forged or not. If they were forged, it gives Dan Rather a black eye. Big whup. I don't watch Dan Rather anyway. If they weren't forged then it shows that GWB didn't fulfill his duties to the TANG 30+ years ago. Again, big whup. I'd rather judge the candidates on what they are doing now, not what what they did in their twenties.

An Excuse to Play with Photoshop

So I've been intrigued by the speculation that recently released documents about George Bush's military service might have been forged. The blogospere is in a veritable tizzy. To be clear: I could hardly care less whether George Bush was actually AWOL from the Texas Air National Guard 30 years ago, it's the documents themselves that have piqued my curiosity.

Thus, being a Photoshop nerd, I've decided to check it out myself. Before I started, I checked out best arguments that I could find that lay out the case for and against forgery. Then I went to work.

I've seen claims that simply typing the memo into Microsoft Word using default settings will yield an exact match to the memo. This isn't precisely true. I first had to modify my margins to match the memo (1.5 inches on the left, 1 inch on the right) and then disable the "auto-list" feature that will automatically indent numbered lists as you type them. But otherwise, it came out pretty darn close (click for a larger view):

A lot of speculation has centered around the font used in the memo, and that this font, as printed on the memo, could only have been produced from a modern computer. In fact, Times New Roman is a typeface has been around for quite some time, having been created in 1931 for the Times of London.

Now, a font is a font. Whether it's displayed on a computer screen or typed with a typewriter or printed on a printing press, it's supposed to look nearly the same in every case. When the personal computer and desktop publishing exploded onto the scene, most electronic fonts were created to mimic existing fonts as closely as possible. This includes not only the shape of the letters, but the spaces between the letters. So you can see how, after aligning the margins correctly, a memo typed in Microsoft Word can match a memo typed on an advanced typewriter in 1973.

Still, let's look real close. Here's one chunk of text, selected more or less at random. The top line is from my Word document, the bottom is from the TANG memo. Even after multiple photocopies and scanning, you can tell that the memo looks slightly different. One thing stands out for me, the letters all appear taller and skinnier in the Word document, look especially at the ascenders and descenders in letters like p, k, d, b, etc.

Now look at this chunk of text and you will see a similar difference, especially in the controversial ^th. What's this prove? Nothing. We won't know anything for certain until someone recreates the memo using a 1973-era typewriter.

My Dog, the Bunny Killer

A warning for animal rights activists who own or are thinking about owning a dog: your dog does not share your morals. While visting my parents over Labor Day weekend, Buddy made his first kill. Early Monday AM I went out talk to one of Mom's business associates, when Buddy came trotting over to me, proudly holding a dangling rabbit in his mouth. Unconvinced by my argument that I should have the rabbit, he proceeded to find a quiet place to enjoy what turned out to be his second breakfast of the morning.

Not sure whether to feel pride or disgust, Kari and I decided to split the duties. I feel pride, Kari feels disgust. It's going to be my job to walk the dog for a couple of days...

Other items discussed over the weekend:

• Online cartoons such as PVP online and Homestar Runner, particularly Strong Bad's email, even more particularly the li'l brudder episode


• the benefits of eating tomatoes


• how to identify the breed of a draft horse


• how to play texas hold 'em


• pond maintenance and possible uses of a stagnant pond

UPDATE: Oh yeah, the bear. Emily saw the bear first, and then Dad chased it through the woods so that everyone else could see it. Except me.

Earworm of the Day

(Don't Fear) The Reaper - Blue Öyster Cult

From Agents of Fortune, especially the guitar bridge: diddle-diddle-diddle-diddle-dooo-dooo!

(Props to KF for the earworm reference.)

Betting on the Flop

President George Bush gave a stirring speech last night, probably the best speech of his career. He's certainly gotten more comfortable speaking from the podium in the past four years, and you could see that especially in the second half of the speech. More than anything else he's said or done during his first term, this speech has helped me learn to like George Bush as a person.

But there was nothing in the speech that made me want to vote for him. His speech focussed on his leadership ability as he appealed to voters to trust his decisions for another four years. In one of his most powerful lines he said, "You know what I believe and where I stand." That got a huge cheer from the party faithful, but when you actually read the text of his speech it's hard to see exactly what he does stand for.

He appeals to the Republican values of fiscal responsibility and takes great pride in his willingness to cut taxes, but he sweeps the other half of the equation under the carpet. He has taken no action in the last four years to reign in spending and has built up a record deficit that even conservatives attack as unsustainable. In his speech, the President ticked off a list of social programs for education, health care, and job growth, but offered no plan for paying for any of these programs.

He claims to have led a broad international coalition against the War on Terror, and did indeed provide an impressive list of allies; however, in reality, the US provides a vast majority of the troops on the ground in Iraq. Meanwhile, this prolonged war has distracted attention and diverted resources from resurgent terrorists in Afghanistan, nuclear proliferation in Iran and North Korea, and the need for protection at home.

In his 2000 convention speech, George Bush appealed to values of compassionate conservatism, respect for our allies, and a refusal to engage in nation building. Sure, 9/11 changed the political landscape, but in the first 8 months of his presidency, he had already turned his back on two of these three ideals. The question for the American voter is whether we should judge him by his promises or his past actions.

It's not so much that Bush flip-flops. He just claims to be a flipper when he's really a flopper.

Maybe Arnold is a Democrat

David Brooks (yes, a conservative editor at the NYT!) has an interesting article in this week's Sunday magazine analyzing the shifting philosophy of the Republican party. As the two parties move closer to each other on fiscal policy, the old small vs. big government dichotomy is harder to maintain. It's one of the reasons why you see moderate Republicans play such a prominent role during the convention as the party tries to appeal to a broader base.

So since Arnold Schwarzenegger is being touted as the future of the party, I thought I'd read the transcript of his speech to see what he brings to the table. As I've said, he's made a lot of assertions that play well in a speech, but I think many of his assertions are just wrong. Here's the meat of the speech:

My fellow immigrants, my fellow Americans how do you know if you are a Republican? I'll tell you how.

If you believe that government should be accountable to the people, not the people to the government...then you are a Republican!

I'm not sure what this means, or why this is strictly a Republican trait. Surely any politician is accountable to the people who elect them. Whose interests would they serve otherwise?

If you believe a person should be treated as an individual, not as a member of an interest group... then you are a Republican!

Interest groups, interest groups, hmmmmm, what's Arnold talking about?

If you believe your family knows how to spend your money better than the government does... then you are a Republican!

Tell that to your grandchildren who will be paying back the massive deficit racked up by George Bush and the Republican Congress.

If you believe our educational system should be held accountable for the progress of our children ... then you are a Republican!

Hey, this is a good point. It would be nice though, if George Bush were interested in funding the program he championed in the 2000 campaign.

If you believe this country, not the United Nations, is the best hope of democracy in the world ... then you are a Republican!

Another good distcinction. Let's tell our soldiers and the parents of soldiers that the US will be solely responsible for bringing democracy to the entire world. I guess that means we will have to take on the nation building process in these fledgling democracies as well.

And, ladies and gentlemen ...if you believe we must be fierce and relentless and terminate terrorism ... then you are a Republican!

I'm not sure how this is strictly a Republican issue, especially while terrorism proliferates while we divert resources to Iraq.

There is another way you can tell you're a Republican. You have faith in free enterprise, faith in the resourcefulness of the American people ...and faith in the U.S. economy. To those critics who are so pessimistic about our economy, I say: Don't be economic girlie men!

Okay, that was funny.

The U.S. economy remains the envy of the world. We have the highest economic growth of any of the world's major industrialized nations. Don't you remember the pessimism of twenty years ago when the critics said Japan and Germany were overtaking the U.S.? Ridiculous!

Now they say India and China are overtaking us. Don't you believe it! We may hit a few BUMPS -- but America always moves ahead! That's what Americans do!

Arnold, you should have just stuck with the joke. Okay, so let's not worry about the anemic job growth, the ballooning deficit, or the effects of the tax burden and job outsourcing on the middle class. This is just a bump! Just be optimistic and all will be well!

I don't know, maybe Arnold should listen to his wife more.