It's not AT&T's fault, it's the iPhone?

My gut finds this persuasive ...

Digital Domain - AT&T Takes the Fall for the iPhone’s Glitches - NYTimes.com

... When I set about looking for independent data, however, to confirm the superior performance of Verizon’s network, I was astonished to discover that I had managed to get things exactly wrong. Despite the well-publicized problems in New York and San Francisco, AT&T seems to have the superior network nationwide.

And the iPhone itself may not be so great after all. Its design is contributing to performance problems.

Roger Entner, senior vice president for telecommunications research at Nielsen, said the iPhone’s “air interface,” the electronics in the phone that connect it to the cell towers, had shortcomings that “affect both voice and data.” He said that in the eyes of the consumer, “the iPhone has the nimbus of infallibility, ergo, it’s AT&T’s fault.” AT&T does not publicly defend itself because it will not criticize Apple under any circumstances, he said. AT&T and Apple both declined to comment on Mr. Entner’s assessments.

Neither AT&T nor Verizon was willing to reveal its internal data on performance. But Global Wireless Solutions, one of the third-party services that run network tests for the major carriers, shared some of its current findings. The service dispatches drivers across the country with phones and laptops equipped with data cards. They have covered more than three million miles of roads this year, while running almost two million wireless data sessions and placing more than three million voice calls, said Paul Carter, the president.

The results place AT&T’s data network not just on top, but well ahead of everyone else. “AT&T’s data throughput is 40 to 50 percent higher than the competition, including Verizon,” Mr. Carter said. AT&T is a client and Verizon is not, he added.

Why do I find this persuasive, even though one of the sources gets AT&T money?

1. We only hear my fellow iPhone users screaming about AT&T quality.
2. Remember Apple's rivals saying Apple didn't have the engineering background to make a quality cell phone? I suspect this is what they were talking about. Apple did amazingly well, but perfection is not human.
3. Quality and reliability are not Apple's top priority (most recent example: my 2 day old flickering, stuttering, $2K iMac i5). It's not in their DNA.
   

Mind you, I despise AT&T. I think they'll shaft their customers whenever they can get away with it. Apple is flawed, but they're still better than everybody else. It's just that this time, when it comes to phone service, I suspect Apple is at least as flawed as AT&T.

Update 12/13/09: If the iPhone does have technical limitations that cause connection issues, is this why AT&T has not allowed tethering?

Update 12/14/09: Two rebuttals from Gruber: One, Two. The second points to Pete Mortensen, who shows the form of the question changes the answers.

A really tough cop ...

This is impressive ...

In Holiday Crush, a Fatal Shootout in Times Sq. - NYTimes.com

... The video showed Mr. Martinez turning, the police said, but he moved out of camera range. Police officials, who did not immediately release the video, said it also showed the sergeant reaching for his weapon and raising it.

It also showed Sergeant Newsom, who has been on the force for 17 years, raising his left arm over his chest in hopes of protecting his heart. It is a defensive move rookies are taught in the Police Academy. Police officials were astonished that the sergeant, less than 15 feet from the stubby barrel of a semiautomatic weapon with no hope of taking cover, was cool-headed enough to remember to do so.

Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said Mr. Martinez fired first, getting off two shots. Then his gun jammed.

Mr. Kelly said the sergeant fired four shots. All four hit Mr. Martinez: in the chest, below the neck and in the left arm; he also suffered a graze wound to the right arm...

--
My Google Reader Shared items (feed)

Kurzweil and homeopathy: now crackpot certified

Ray Kurzweil made a bundle on speech recognition and speech related software. He's also done some good work with assistive technologies.

In later life he wandered off into the cultish fringes of the Singularity. He's seemed less anchored to reality in recent years, and now he's nuked the fridge (emphases mine) ...

Amazon.com: Transcend: Nine Steps to Living Well Forever (9781605299563): Ray Kurzweil Ph.D., Terry Grossman M.D.: Books

According to futurist Kurzweil (The Singularity is Near) and homeopathic medical doctor Grossman (The Baby Boomer's Guide to Living Forever), medicine is transforming into an information technology, which by its nature advances at an exponential rate..

Homeopathy is fundamentalist crackpottery (and "homeopathic medical" is an oxymoron). Kurzweil has really lost it.

--
My Google Reader Shared items (feed)

The state of social networks: Facebook, Twitter and one other

I’ve interacted with three social network systems. Two get a lot of media attention, but the most interesting one is currently invisible. Here’s how they look to me in December 2009.

Facebook is currently useful, but worrisome. It's useful because it’s been a useful way for me to share family news that (very) close friends may enjoy seeing. Facebook is where I announce that my 12 yo scored a goal in a hockey game, and where my readers would understand that a goal is not always just a goal. Facebook is worrisome because their business model is currently based on exploiting the weakest members of a social graph, and then on selling information and marketing access to the entire graph. It’s remarkable how uninteresting Facebook’s ads are. That’s a bad sign, even thought it says something interesting about the limited predictive value of one's friendships.

Twitter would be more interesting if I had an archaic cell phone with unlimited text messaging, or if I had an interest in the domestic disturbances of celebrities. Twitter’s usage is on the same track as Friendster and MySpace. I don’t think it will last very much longer.

The most interesting social network I know of, however, is one that has very few members, no media coverage, no books, little documentation, no clear strategy, and mysterious privacy and revenue models. This is the Google Reader share and comment graph including the (currently) “like-based” discovery model.

Through the Google Reader (GR) “like” link I’ve identified about six English-language writers around the world who share an interest in topics I want to know about. When I find one who is sharing interesting items I don’t see or know about, I add them to my GR graph. They may choose to follow me or not – that’s not relevant to me. The value is that I can follow what they do.

I add one such meta-feed to my knowledge stream every few weeks. The stream volume does not increase much, because I can in turn drop direct reads of streams my experts cover. Given the uber-geekiness of the GR graph membership the quality of shared items is currently very high, but I don’t see why this approach won’t scale even in the event that the GR graph gets market attention.

The primary risk to this model, of course, is that Google will lose interest. I suspect, however, that this experiment will provide Google with interesting ways to explore and classify the world’s information stream – a mission very dear to their revenue model.

Google’s machine translation is improving every month – I’m looking for my first Chinese-language source. That will be interesting.

The GR graph means Google wins and I win. Maybe, if this increases the value of the world’s knowledge stream, we all win.

I like that model.

See also

• Gordon's Notes- Google reader “like” and the shared discovery process
• Gordon's Tech- Google Reader- Experiments with notes, following and sharing
• Gordon's Notes- Google reader micro-blogging and changes to Gordon Notes
• Gordon's Tech- More of me- My Google Reader Shared Item Feed’
• Official Google Reader Blog- Share anything. Anytime. Anywhere

Update: Of course the day I post this is the day it seems to stop working. I am following about 17 people, but nothing happens if I try to add someone new. Google has been doing something funky with sharing permissions; it's possible that when I "follow" someone they have to approve before anything happens. So it's now more of a "request to follow".

Financial Times – the feeds and the Fail

I’ve finally given in to DeLong’s imprecations and added some Financial Times sources to my feeds. The FT sources ought to complement my much appreciated Guardian feeds.

I do get one feed from the Murdoch paper – the WSJ’s Health blog is actually pretty good. Otherwise, unlike Brad who seems unable to stay away, I ignore the WSJ.

Here’s the set I’m starting with, I’ll tweak it up and down over time.

• Markets main
• Africa
• World main
• Global Economy
• Asia-Pacific
• Comment main
• FT Editor’s blog
• Tech blog
• Science blog
• China main
• India main
• Personal Finance main

So what will I drop? Probably some of the Economist’s feeds – that mag seems to be continuing its downward course. I expect Murdoch to buy it any time now.

PS. Google Reader's "Add to Folder" select menu doesn't scale. At least give it a scroll bar! As an interim measure I've deleted all my "Google Reader" tags. The Reader team really messed up the folder/tag metaphor.

Update 12/5/09: Ok, that was a Fail. The FT allows only a small number of free article views a month and the subscription fees I was shown when registering was about $200 a year - for electronic access alone. That was bad, but I might have considered it -- except a feed link takes me to a view that's incompatible with a mobile client. Delete all.

Singular fun with Fermi

I'm a geek. So I love to puzzle with the Fermi Paradox, and, like many fellow geeks, I'm tempted to connect the Great Silence to the "Singularity" (aka, the rapture of the geeks). That puts me on the pessimistic side of the Singularity cult -- as in "Hello Hal, Goodbye humanity".

Now since we're talking about the extinction of humanity within 40 - 300 years (I go for about 80-100 myself) you might think this would be a bit depressing. Well, it might be, except I've long known I'll be dead before 2070 and probably before 2050. Everyone I care about will be dead within about 110 years. These are the things we secular humanist types know, and yet we can be quite cheerful. Ok, not in my case. Less dour maybe.

The peri-Singular death of humanity is a serious matter for humans, but it's less inevitable than our personal exits, so by comparison the Fermi Paradox/Singularity schtick is more entertaining than grim. That's why I appreciated this comment on a recent post (edits and emphases mine, follow link for full text) ...

Comment by Augustine 11/29/09

... I don't trust predictions that are based on extrapolations from current rates of growth. These predictions are, and will be, correct, but only for limited time frames. Extend them out too far and they become absurd. Moore's Law works fine, and will continue to work fine for a while I’m sure, but basing predictions on ever accelerating computing power is about as useful as imagining accelerating a given mass to the speed of light.

The greater problem, however, with the argument lies in the fact that we are at best imperfect predictors ... You cannot accurately infer a future singularity when you cannot know what will change the game before it happens, if you get my drift...

There's more to the post, but I'll stick with these two questions. The "limits to exponential growth" argument is even stronger than stated here since, in fact, Moore's Law itself has already failed. We have some more doublings to go, but each one is taking longer than the last.

So maybe we'll never have the technology to make a super-human AI. I think we'll make at least a human-class AI, if only because we've made billions of human-level DI (DNA-Intelligences). Even if computers only get five more doublings in, I think we'll figure a way to cobble something together that merits legal protection, a vote, and universal healthcare. (Ok, so the AI will come sooner than universal healthcare.)

So we get our AI, and IT's very smart, but it's comprehensible (Aaronson put this well). So this is certainly disruptive, but it's no singularity. On the other circuit, it does seem odd that today's average human would represent the pinnacle of cognition. Our brains are really crappy. Sure the associative cortices are neat, but the I/O channels are pathetic. A vast torrent of data washes out of our retina -- and turns into hugely compressed lossy throughput along a clogged input channel. We can barely juggle five disparate concepts in working memory. Surely we can improve on that!

So I'm afraid that Newton/Einstein/Feynman class minds do not represent a physical pinnacle of cognition. We'll most likely get something at least 10 times smarter. Something that makes things even smarter and faster, than can continuously improve and extend cognitive abilities until we start to approach physical limits of computation. Before that though, the earth has been turned into "computronium" -- and my atoms are somewhere in orbit.

As to the second objection, that we can't imagine a singularity because we can only reason within the system we know, I think that's actually the point. We can't imagine what comes after the world of the super-human minds because -- well, we don't have the words for that world. We can reason within the system we know until sometime close to when these critters come online, then we can't.

That doesn't mean humanity necessarily kicks off. Lots of geeks imagine we'll upload our minds into unoccupied (!) processing environments, or that the AIs will be sentimental. Not everyone is as cheerily pessimistic as me. It's not called a "Singularity" because it's the "end", it's because we can't make predications about it. Super-AI is death to prediction.

--
My Google Reader Shared items (feed)

The siege of Munster – Yikes.

I thought Melvyn was pushing a bit hard during In Our Time’s program on The Siege of Münster, but by the end I could see how much he had to cover. This 16th century nightmare is a cross between the “Killing Fields” and Jim Jones Kool-Aid in Guyana with the “Tailor King”, Jan (Bockelson) van Leyden, in the starring role as a brutal theocratic polygamist*.

In the early 20th century van Leyden was considered a precursor to Hitler, and although IOT’s academic rejected the comparison I find it more persuasive. There are even some similarities in the reaction. The Munster horror made the Anabaptists radical pacifists and made some common cause between European Catholics and Protestants. The Holocaust made post-war Germany a peaceful state, and led to the creation of the European Union.

van Leyden introduced polygamy into his besieged cult. I wonder if memories of Munster played a role in the early 19th century response to Joseph Smith, then mayor of Nauvoo, and his polygamous theocracy.

It’s horrifically fascinating, and overdue for a cinematic interpretation.

* There are curious attempts to sanitize van Leyden, including, at this time, the wikipedia article I link to. I’d go with the trio of IOT’s academic historians over the Wikipedia article on this one; he was a  Monster in a monstrous time.

It's not over. The rise of second generation spam.

First generation spam was pretty bad, but it's more or less under control now. Between sharpening spam recognition algorithms, crowd sourcing, and managing the reputation of authenticated sending services Google has beaten back the tide.

So that's it for spam?

Heh. Of course not. Now we have second generation spam.

Second generation spam does not use forged headers -- though the headers do seem to change a fair bit. This spam is not anonymous, it markets real goods, services - and politicians.

The goods and services aren't too hard to manage. I created a filter that sends anything from "buy.com" to the trash -- that took care of 80% of it.

The politicians are much worse. I get daily spam from fund raising politicos, PACs and other accessories to the political process. I now have about 25 Gmail filters that do nothing but delete all incoming email from their domains. The domains typically last a few months, and then there's a new crop. At this rate I'll have 200+ Gmail filters that delete email from largely defunct domains.

What? Ask to be removed from the lists? Clearly you're just toying with me. I tried that of course, but it doesn't work. I just get added back in they next time some politico buys a list. (Maybe I should start forwarding to spam@uce.gov as well?)

It's hard for any ISP to block this kind of spam. Politicians generally exempt themselves from laws that slow fundraising; if Google blocked their spam they'd be asking for a world of hurt. Better to get between a Grizzly and her cub than between a politician and your wallet.

We need a different approach to political spam. Sorry, I have to vote for some these dorks -- better spam than Palin and her ilk! So changing my vote's not enough. Any ideas?

I do have one quick fix. Google could add a "blacklist all from this domain" to the message action select menu. Choose it and the message is deleted and the blacklist entry created in a one move.

Another related fix -- allow Gmail users to share their blacklists. So Google wouldn't get in trouble, because we'd be choosing what block.

Any other ideas?

Climategate: Gordon Speaks

Ahem.

I've been reading my always excellent blog sources, so I'm ready to comment on Climategate ....

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident - Wikipedia

... Unidentified persons allegedly hacked a server used by the Climatic Research Unit, posting online copies of e-mails and documents that they found.[5] The incident is being investigated by Norfolk police[18] and involved the theft of more than 1,000 e-mails and 3,000 other documents,[9] consisting of 160 MB of data in total.[12] ...

For my own record, here's my take:

1. UK researchers have a very innocent approach to email. In the corporate world we write email the way I used to write my medical notes -- to be read in a courtroom. Remember Lomasney chaps.
2. If the released emails are the worst the hackers found, there's not much of a story here.
3. I'd make a solid wager that five years from now the climate consensus will not have materially changed. The science will stand. (I would love to be able to invest in a Climate Futures Market. I hope we get one.)
4. Scientific fraud is not rare. So it must always be considered. There is, however, stronger evidence of fraud among the solar forcing research community and among the denialist astroturfers.
5. Research data is money, power, tenure, fame, grants, hot babes (ok, 5/6) -- it is the currency of science. I sympathize with scientists who want to hold on to their data, though not with the Journals that may impede open sharing. In this case, however, we are talking about research with inestimable implications. In the case of Climate Science, we must insist on an unusual degree of access to research data. There's already progress but sharing is not natural for most scientists. Encouragement will be needed.
6. I'm looking forward to learning who the hackers are, and what their motivations were.
7. There's room for rational disagreement about the risks and approaches to global climate change. The denialist community is making it hard to engage in that dialog. That may be one of the more pernicious effects of their quest for fame.

--
My Google Reader Shared items (feed)

Complexity attack – the illustrated version

Synchronicity? Probably not*.

Dilbert experiences a complexity attack (click through for full strip) …

See also:

• Gordon's Notes- Left Behind- Ludd, Beck and the non-tribal roots of tea party rage
• Gordon's Notes- Health insurance- we're defeated by a complexity attack
• Gordon's Notes- The Empire Strikes Back- complexity, mobile phone plans, and Apple defeated
• Gordon's Notes- The hidden inflation of low quality

*No, it’s not that Scott Adams reads Gordon’s Notes. I’m really not that delusional. He’s very good at the zeitgeist, and I think people are catching on how complexity is being used as a commercial weapon.

In Our Time - Siege of Vienna seems familiar

There was something familiar about the Polish horses rushing down from the mountain top to end The Siege of Vienna.

Oh, right. Gee, I wonder if Tolkien knew that history.

--
My Google Reader Shared items (feed)

The Family Telescope: Orion Dobsonian or Edmund Scientific Astroscan … or Orion StarBlast?

I'm looking for advice - so please comment!

I would like to get a telescope for family astronomy (really, my 7yo daughter and I). Happily, unlike my high school days, I don't have to grind a mirror. We'll have to travel outside the city to see much, so ease of transport and setup is important.

I've more or less narrowed things down to two quite different devices:

• Orion SkyQuest XT6 Classic Dobsonian Telescope (Or the smaller and lighter XT 4.5)
• Edmund Scientific Astroscan Plus (the famous Dans Data review)

Both devices have excellent reviews. The Astroscan is more rugged, requires no assembly, is very easy to transport, and provides great star field views. The Orion Dobsonian is better for planetary viewing.

Any thoughts?

 

Update 12/3/09: I ended up choosing none of the above, and went for a well regarded scope that’s a bit of both – the Orion StarBlast 4.5 and a separate 2x Barlow lens. I waffled about getting the same StarBlast with an equatorial mount, but ended up with the original mount because Amazon and Orion offered free shipping on the simpler scope, the equatorial is pretty finicky to assemble, setup, and transport (we live in the city, so viewing requires travel), storage space is an issue in our home, and the primary user is my daughter who’s still 7 yo size. I’ll post later about how I feel about that decision after we’ve used the scope a bit.

 

There’s also a StarBlast 6 now, though it’s not sold by Amazon. I felt that might be stretching the limits of the basic design, but clearly I’m no expert.
--
My Google Reader Shared items (feed)

Bad web sites, genetic fitness, and choosing a service provider

The way I found the current swim schedule at a community recreation, fitness and cultural center was to find the link to the future schedule, guess what the current link would be, and hand edit the URL. This isn't a new problem; their web site has been awful for at least five years.

I've written about why automotive sites are so bad, despite their vast economic value. None of those reasons apply in this case. So why has this facility had such an awful web site for so many years? On the face of it they have a very simple task; they need to put up pages with contact information, maps, PDF schedules, etc. Why does it go so wrong?

I'll get to that, but first I'll inflict some wisdom of the aged. Feedback won't help. When something is this bad even kindly suggestions won't help. They'll only cause hurt feelings. The problem must have deep roots.

My guess is that this rec center has fallen prey to one of the institutional weaknesses of the well meaning non-profit. Maybe it's become the job of someone who likes it but is unsuited for the task. Perhaps this person can't or won't be moved. Maybe it's become the job nobody wants to do. Perhaps its a form of passive-aggressive self-mutilation.

Good leaders figure ways out of these traps, so the persistence of this organization's problems suggests deeper leadership issues. We can think of an organization's web site as the equivalent of a biological organism's "fitness displays" -- such as big muscles or symmetric features. Web site weaknesses are a good measure of deeper institutional flaws.

Which brings me back to our automobile purchase, which has been stalled for the past month (the 2010 Subaru models do not impress). I'll look for the best automotive web site to guide our next cycle of car purchasing. Likewise if we were looking for a new swim facility, I'd look for a well organized web site.

A modern web site has a lot of meanings. It's hard for a dysfunctional organization to create and maintain a quality web experience. It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of the sorts of things that have to come together and stay together, and the many mistakes that have to be avoided. Web sites can be an important fitness marker for institutions; the good ones are both smart and pretty.

--
My Google Reader Shared items (feed)

Fermi Paradox review article - 2005

A comment on a past post of mine referred me to a 2005 article: SETI and the Cosmic Quarantine Hypothesis.

The essay is a good summary of the Drake Equation and its relationship to the Fermi Paradox. The author is clearly an optimist, he imagines a benign super-civilization blocking aggressive expansionism. That was the theme of a famous 1970s-era science fiction series, except the interventions were not benign.

It's a pleasant thought, but it seems unnecessarily complex. A simpler explanation is that all technological civilizations run into singularities long before they can attempt serious star flight. Whatever happens thereafter, it doesn't involve any wandering we could see. (Charlie Stross included a clever variant in a book - he speculated the post-singular civilization couldn't abide the poor connectivity of wilderness living.)

Mr. Soter misses the singularity effect in his estimation of the lifespan of civilizations. He's right that mere eco-catastrophe would not eliminate humanity, but technological singularities are (imagined to be) a different sort of extinction/transformation event.

I did learn one new thing. The novelist Michael Crichton, in addition to despising concerns about global warming, also hated the Drake equation. He was a kind of anti-Gordon, but a bit richer and better known than I.
--
My Google Reader Shared items (feed)

Discovering medical prices and the problem with paying cash

Walecia Conrad has written a pretty good summary of the problems of price discovery in medical care services. She mentions several approaches, including online services, calling physician offices, and checking payor (insurance) sites.

None, of course, are satisfactory. I hope she'll dig a bit deeper into price discovery. There are two places she could learn from. One is the problem with discovering how much a medication costs in different forms through different vendors with different coverage plans. Good luck on that one.

The other topic is more amenable to digging. She almost got into it, but perhaps had to set it aside for another day. Ms. Conrad mentions that cash fees for medical services are usually much higher than the negotiated fees insurance companies provide (this is very relevant to health care reform of course).

What she missed is why.

My own recollection, for I no longer deal with this issues, is that payor (insurance) reimbursement is based on a fraction "list price". So imagine that Blue Scythe pays 50% of list price. If costs+margin means a services costs $50 physician must then set "list price" to $100 so they get $50 from Blue Scythe. The "list price" must be validated as a customary charge, so it must show up on bills -- including bills for people who pay cash.

This means people paying cash are providing a huge margin, but this is an unwanted embarrassment for most practices. In my day we wanted to charge people paying cash less, not more.

I think there may be ways around this now. My knowledge is at least fifteen years old! Still, this an area that deserves some journalistic effort.