January 4, 2007
The First Coming (Not A Porn Movie)
Jacob posted about the Edge annual question for 2007, where they ask what they call the "world's leading thinkers" one question. This year, the question is, "What are you optimistic about? Why?" Jacob pointed out the really cool answer of Martin Seligman, author of Authentic Happiness.
Seligman writes about what he calls "The First Coming;" about a "God" that may eventually arise as the end process of biological and cultural evolution. It's a very cool idea. That eventually, as the result of the increasingly complex systems that are selected for in evolutionary processes, we or our descendents will evolve into or create through technological means, a system sufficiently complex as to be omnipotent, omniscient, and even good.
In the all too brief answer, Seligman argues that there are four properties Judeo-Christians ascribe as necessary to God:
- omnipotence
- omniscience
- goodness
- creator of the universe
He thinks we should abandon the fourth. It will get rid of certain messy theological problems (and he elaborates on that a bit), and it will still have the end result of giving our lives hope and meaning. It's an idea that even I, a vehement atheist, can get behind. And really, in a way, I am already am in that camp. I'm a secular humanist, thinking that the point of our lives is to advance the technological, moral, and intellectual progress of humanity. The end result of that process, if it is allowed to continue for long enough (though it is very likely that it won't) is indistinguishable from God.
It reminds me of the Arther C. Clarke's statement (referred to as Clarke's Third Law) that "any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Michael Shermer paraphrased that law, and commuted it into "Any sufficiently advanced extra terrestrial intelligence is indistinguishable from God." And a far-evolved version of ourselves is the functional equivalent (to us) of an extra-terrestrial. So is a sufficiently advanced machine.
So I don't necessarily think that Seligman's statement changes anything for me. But I've never heard the idea stated so straighforwardly and in a way that secular people who believe in science can say without blushing. Either way, it's cool to be reminded that maybe we are working toward something real. And maybe in the end, there might not be much difference at all between the views of religious men and rational men. They might end up giving up one of their views of God, and we might end up adopting a few of theirs.
Posted by Barzelay at 9:29 PM | Comments (5)
June 30, 2006
Check out Google Checkout
Google has opened up a new service called Google Checkout, which will supposedly be competing with Paypal. Besides providing certain typical Google functionality that Paypal lacks, such as the ability permanently to aggregate an infinite amount of personal data about you (lacking, of course, the ability to disaggregtate that info), Google Checkout doesn't really do much Paypal doesn't do. But it does do a lot less. In fact, it's really more similar to Amazon's marketplace checkout system than it is to Paypal. From GCheckout's Terms Of Service:
"The Service may not be used to process a Payment Transaction, or otherwise transfer money between a Buyer and Seller, that is unrelated to a purchase of a Product."
That means no sending or receiving money--only "bona fide" sales. In addition, there is a list of products and services one is prohibited from buying using GCheckout. The link to this list from the Terms Of Service is currently giving a 404--I think that means I'm not bound by whatever those terms were. In any case, I did manage to find what I presume is the same list here, thanks to a link from Joe Gratz. It's quite a lengthy list. Here are some of the more notable items one cannot purchase with Google Checkout:
- Adult goods and services
- Body parts
- Child pornography
- "Black boxes"
- Mod chips
- "Copyrighted media" and "Copyrighted software" (presumably, they mean from someone other than a licensed distributor)
- Drugs and drug paraphernalia, including tobacco
- Endangered species
- Miracle cures
- Occult goods
- Offensive goods (are they serious?)
- Pyrotechnic devices
- Weapons
My burgeoning business in body parts and bulk marketing has been banned! I love Google, but it doesn't seem like this service adds much to this market. Couple that with the privacy concerns over Google accumulating yet another set of data on us, and this news doesn't really look very attractive. The next service to open will be GoogleSubpoenas, the government's one-stop shop for every bit of information that exists about you.
The only way I can see this being a good thing is if this means Google will eventually implement a workable micropayment system. That way, someone whose content was popular--Dan Savage of Savage Love, for instance--could cut out the gobs of middlemen, and simply charge his readers for his column. Just $0.02 per week! Who wouldn't pay that? The market would work out the actual value of his column. There are tons of other possible uses for micropayments. What else can you come up with? Until then, I'm loving Paypal.
Posted by Barzelay at 4:52 AM | Comments (0)
June 8, 2006
HP Discovers Teleportation
Remember how I was having problems with my laptop during the long ride out here? It was beeping angrily at me many times a day, and refused even to complete the simplest of tasks without throwing a tantrum. Well, it definitely needed to be repaired. I've got it back now, which is wonderful. Now I can do this again---------->
So let me present you with a timeline of the service process I experienced with HP:
- Fri, 06/02/06: I call a representative at HP and give them my work address in San Francisco. They ship a box to me by overnight mail.
- Sat, 06/03/06: Box arrives, but no one was at work on Saturday to sign for it.
- Mon, 06/05/06: Box arrives. I pack up laptop and call Fedex to come pick it up. They come about an hour later.
- Tue, 06/06/06: Laptop arrives at HP's service center in Memphis, TN. They repair.
- Wed, 06/07/06: Laptop arrives back at my office around 11:00am.
So from the time I sent off the laptop, it went to Memphis, had its motherboard replaced, and it came back to San Francisco, 30 hours passed. Wow. I don't know what kind of secret voodoo magic that my customer service rep worked on Fedex and HP to make them actually approach efficiency, but I'm elated. I had to use a really slow iBook at work in the interim, and it was quite a stubborn old fellow.
I so missed my laptop. He's a cute little guy. You'd like him if you met him. I also took this opportunity to add a couple stickers. I think he likes them.
Posted by Barzelay at 4:34 AM | Comments (7)
April 14, 2006
Google Calendar is out!
Google Calendar is out and is wonderful. It is acccessible from anywhere, integrates with Gmail (let me know if you need an invite, by the way), makes Mozilla Sunbird obsolete, can send SMS, email, and many other kinds of reminder, and generally revolutionizes my life. So, go check out Google Calendar. It's definitely a much-needed app for me.
Posted by Barzelay at 10:08 PM | Comments (10)
March 19, 2006
Now back to our regularly scheduled nerdy, boring programming.
Now back to our regularly scheduled nerdy, boring programming.
It's funny the way people are willing to accept computers as a scapegoat for damn near every problem, and to do so without question. At Tryst today, our order took a while to come (not long enough that any explanation was really even needed), but our waitress apologized for it, saying that their computers had crashed. Her explanation got me thinking about how often crashing computers are offered as an excuse for every possible bad situation.
It works to our detriment when businesses blame poor service on computers, and it works to our advantage when we blame late assignments on our own computer problems. And computers get blamed for everything from miscommunications to power blackouts. In the classic sci-fi novel/movie The Andromeda Strain, a computer printer malfunction is nearly responsible for wiping out the entire human race. With all these problems, we forget that there are entitites actually at fault when computers don't work properly, and that computers don't have to fail all the time.
The complexity of computers means that the average person doesn't even begin to understand their inner workings. As a result, no one questions the assumption that computer crashes, no matter how often, are inevitable. They aren't. They're due to thousands of little errors in programming. And those errors are due to thousands of little programmers doing sloppy work. And though it is true that in a sufficiently complex system, some errors are bound to be present at first, successive iterations of upgrades and bugfixes can actually make things run in some manner resembling proper operation. But no one demands it from the computer industry the way they do from every other industry.
This observation led to two thoughts, neither of them the least bit original:
- There ought to be better mechanisms in place to hold software and hardware producers accountable when their products fail. End-User License Agreements shouldn't be able to disclaim all liability, especially when there are no choices in the market that don't come with an indentical waiver.
If McDonald's posted a flyer on their doors that said by entering, one waives the right to hold them accountable for the quality of their food, courts and legislators would not find this acceptable. If McDonald's serves bacteria-ridden Big Macs, no court is going to dismiss suits just because they told the customers they couldn't sue. McDonald's would be viewed as unreasonable, and derelict in their duty to provide safe food.
Unlike the McDonald's case, courts would find bugs in software and hardware to be reasonable and normal problems, and probably refuse to hold the manufacturers responsible. Hence, the perception that computer crashes are inevitable is a self-fulfilling prophecy, because everyone assumes they are normal, removing the companies' duty to avoid them.
Disclaiming liability with EULA's shouldn't be possible in most cases. I'm not proposing strict liability for commercial software (I haven't given it enough thought), only proposing that there be some liability. Our rights are, after all, inalienable, and that includes by EULAs.
- We need to make sure we preserve traditional ways of functioning without computers. When computers go down, we should degrade gracefully, and have backup systems in place that don't rely on sophisticated electronics. Waiters and waitresses can write orders down, electronic ballots can have verifiable paper trails, credit-card merchants can use the old knucklebusters, and when ESPN.com goes down, we have to remember to watch Sportscenter on the television.
But in any case, we need to stop accepting computers problems as attributable to some sort of cosmic bad luck. It probably isn't your waitress' fault that the computers at Tryst are down, but it is someone's fault. And if the computers at Tryst keep going down, it's their job to get better software.
Posted by Barzelay at 8:43 PM | Comments (10)
July 27, 2005
ISP blocks access to its employee union's website
Related to recent discussions of media manipulation, Canadian telco "Telus," whose workers are striking, has blocked internet access to the employee union's website. No customers of Telus are able to access the site. If they can keep the other side from being heard, they can frame the debate. Discussion on Slashdot.
I've long thought that the weakest links in the chain of freedom on the internet are not the government, nor big corporations like the RIAA. The weakest links are the ISPs. They can control access, log access, censor content, shut down access when they want to, and their motivations are profit. The trouble with the DMCA and recent court rulings is that the ISPs are monetarily liable for infringement and they have become responsible for policing.
If the ISPs were better corporate citizens, they'd be nicer about not keeping logs or assuming the guilt of anyone who receives a good faith copyright infringement notification (which I've been on the wrong side of many times). Regulations on responsibility really need to change. Many ISPs have government-granted monopolies on the fiber in particular areas, and yet they have the right to control access to content. This isn't right.
UPDATE: It appears that Telus is actually breaking a bunch of laws.
Posted by Barzelay at 4:19 AM | Comments (0)
DVD manufacturers suck
 |
So there's something that's been bothering me for quite some time. It's a problem I encounter at least a couple times per week, and though it only takes fifteen seconds or so to correct, it has become extremely annoying, to the point that it has induced this rant.
The problem of which I am speaking is that of two-sided DVDs and the way they are labeled. I know it seems to be a simple problem, but I am here to tell you, friends, that it is not. It is exasperating.
See, they put out DVDs with the widescreen version of the film on one side, and the "full screen" version on the other. Then they label one side as "Widescreen" and the other side as "Full Screen." The trouble is, I never know whether the "Widescreen" label should be facing up so that I can see it, or whether the side labeled "Widescreen" should be facing down, toward the laser that actually reads it. Either way would make sense, though I think the latter method would make a bit more sense. The side on which the widescreen version of the film is printed should be labeled as such, and should therefore be facing down toward the laser.
In any case, this wouldn't be so bad. A simple one-time trial would solve the dilemma and tell me which way the DVD manufacturers expect me to insert the DVD into my player or drive. The real trouble comes in the fact that every DVD is different! Some DVDs expect the widescreen label to be up to play the widescreen version, and some expect the widescreen label to be down to play the widescreen version. Guess Who's Coming To Dinner wants the Widescreen label down, while Play It Again, Sam wants it up. What the fuck is wrong with them?
Can't they label it "Widescreen (this side up)" or "Widescreen (this side down)?" Instead I have to arbitrarily pick a side, put it in, wait for it to start playing. Then, because the companies are too lazy to make two different sets of DVD menus, I have to actually play the movie and fast forward until I can see the entire picture. Then, approximately 90% of the time (can't explain why it's so often), I have to take the DVD out, flip it over, and play it. All I'm asking for is a little consistency.
On the other hand, it's completely beyond me why anyone would want a "full screen," aka "partial movie" version. Movies look so much more grand in widescreen... so much more aesthetically pleasing. The pan and scan versions just cut part of the picture off, destroying the care the directors and cinematographers have put into framing the shot. The letterboxing is a small price to pay for getting 50% more movie. I really wish the DGA would succeed in negotiating their contracts such that the full movie must be shown. Is anyone really going to go to the store looking for some movie, and then not buy it because it isn't available in a version chopping off its sides? Do any of my readers actually prefer the misleadingly titled "full screen" versions? If so, fuck you for causing me to have go through this hassle, but please explain why.
Posted by Barzelay at 1:02 AM | Comments (4)
July 25, 2005
$ rm terror/ -Rf
This will probably be too nerdy for some of my readers, so I apologize in advance, but I find this hilarious, and so will Daniel, at least. Someone has written the US war on terror as a series of Unix commands. It's really quite brilliant.
$ rm Taliban rm: Taliban is a directory $ cd Taliban $ ls soldiers $ rm soldiers $ cd .. $ rmdir Taliban rmdir: directory "Taliban": Directory not empty $ cd Taliban $ ls -a . .. .insurgents
My favorite part, and this is just awesome, is:
$ ln -s /Bad_Guys/Al_Qaeda Iraq/.
Posted by Barzelay at 6:42 AM | Comments (6)
July 21, 2005
Fucking Stonehenge Could Have Been Built By One Man!
 |
I was gonna post this in that last list of links, but it's just too cool to not get its own post. A Michigan carpenter may have solved the mystery of how Stonehenge was built. He's managed to raise a 9-ton horizontal block of concrete (roughly the shape and size of the stones in Stonehenge) off the ground to an arbitrary height, as well as to move it along the ground and then stand it upright on its end. The video demonstrates the techniques and is one of the coolest things I've seen in a long time. Such a simple explanation. Mind officially blown for the week.
Posted by Barzelay at 1:33 AM | Comments (1)
July 18, 2005
"Hack The Planet"
"Ecohacker Michael Markels claims he has a fix for global warming:" dump a bunch of iron filings into the ocean, which will spur a plankton boom, drastically increasing photosynthesis.
TheHackers (which has a surprisingly low IMDB rating) tagline, "Hack the planet!" seems very applicable. This idea sounds feasible, though it seems like it would have a very damaging effect on ocean life other than plankton. Also, the guy seems to be in it just for the potential profits. I find it very interesting that we've actually reached a point where we can conceive of intentionally altering climate.
For all the global warming panic, panic which I certainly share, at the same time I can't help but think that we'll figure something out to stop it. I definitely feel that in the meantime we should do what we can to stop it, and make drastic cuts, etc (says the guy who owns an SUV, albeit a relatively fuel efficient one). Ratify Kyoto, require all new cars to be hybrids, cut back industrial air pollution, and so on... but I can't help but have some degree of faith in human ingenuity to solve the problem before it gets too bad (though some would say it already is getting quite bad, with the increased storm levels and such).
The funniest thing about the article, in my opinion, is the use of the term "ecohacker." Just because the article is printed in Wired doesn't mean it has to be about hacking. It's just funny that "hacker" has now become mainstream enough, and with neutral enough connotations, that it can now be bandied about in new situations. The other day, my Dad and I killed a coral snake with a shovel in our yard. Does that make us snakehackers? And I know a fat guy, who I will now refer to as a hamburgerhacker. The guy who works at the zoo shoveling shit is a feceshacker. It's really a pretty versatile construction. Me like.
Posted by Barzelay at 3:56 AM | Comments (7)
July 13, 2005
They're coming
Stock up on gallons of water now, and prepare for emergency shutdown of the power grid. The machines are coming. It's only a matter of time before disembodied heads are riding atop massive artificial bodies that function as weapons. Unenhanced humans ("normies") are doomed!
Posted by Barzelay at 5:36 AM | Comments (0)
July 11, 2005
Links to things.
"That these people are, If necessary, prepared to spill Arab blood in addition to the blood of regular--of nonarab people living in London."
Posted by Barzelay at 1:45 AM | Comments (0)
July 6, 2005
Open wi-fi points not really so open?
Another impressive blunder for Tampa! The St Pete Times reports on a man arrested for using open wireless access point. He has admitted to using the connection, and so they're pinning him with "Unauthorized access to a computer network," a third degree felony. That's the same crime someone would get charged with for hacking into a CIA database. All for sitting outside someone's house in a van, surfing the web.
This is a point of law about which I am not ambivalent. This should not be a crime at all. Yes, he wasn't "authorized" to access that network. But neither do you have authorization to access my computer, and yet you are doing it right now to read this blog. The internet is based on an assumption of openness: if something is available on a computer somewhere, then people can access it unless you take steps to prevent their doing so. If we got rid of this principle, you would have to write by snail mail to every website owner in order to obtain permission to access his site before doing so. This principle of openness has been tested in court before where courts said people could not be prosecuted or called hackers merely for typing a web address into their browser and seeing the content at the address, even if the content owners never linked to it. Here's another article about why this must be the case, and this is a great comment on this specific case.
»» Continue reading "Open wi-fi points not really so open?"
Posted by Barzelay at 7:21 AM | Comments (2)
June 28, 2005
AMD Files Antitrust Suit Against Intel
AMD has filed a law suit against Intel. They're totally right, of course. Intel, like any good company, has tried to increase their market share by "encouraging" business partners to go with them instead of their competitors. In some industries, it's easier to do this legally than in others. Unfortunately, Intel has continuously offered special pricing and other forms of payment to partners for buying exclusively from them. This suit will be very long and drawn out, and whatever agreement the government comes to with Intel if AMD wins will likely not do much to fix things (same as with Microsoft).
Posted by Barzelay at 4:21 PM | Comments (2)
June 26, 2005
Barzelay.net Up And Running
Okay, so I've got my website www.barzelay.net up and running. It should now be fully operational. LJ kids, check it out if you haven't yet.
For now, I will continue posting all my entries to LJ as well. I'd like to post to both Movable Type (my blogging software) and Livejournal (owned by Movable Type's company). This is annoying to do, however, because the two plugins designed for crossposting really suck.
»» Continue reading "Barzelay.net Up And Running"
Posted by Barzelay at 7:00 AM | Comments (4)
June 17, 2005
Southern Baptist Resolution and VCR Man
Southern Baptist Convention considers adopting some nutty resolution.
In the article, it says that last year the Southern Baptist Convention considered a resolution to encourage all Southern Baptists to remove their children from public schools.
»» Continue reading "Southern Baptist Resolution and VCR Man"
Posted by Barzelay at 9:33 PM | Comments (0)
April 20, 2005
Google Is Crazy
Wow. I just found out that this journal (http://barzelay.livejournal.com) is the 4th result in a google search for "barzelay". That seems very strange to me since there are thousands of people in the world with my surname, including hundreds of doctors, lawyers, and professors.
Also the singer/guitarist/bandleader/songwriter for Clem Snide, a really awesome indie-alt-folk-country-rock band (like if Bob Dylan channeled Andy Warhol's pop-culture references, and then Wilco covered it on Unplugged) that you should definitely listen to or download from me in zip format here since it's great stuff and I love it, is named Eef Barzelay. They've had a decent fanbase for several years now, and they're starting to get well-known with songs on compilations such as The Future Soundtrack For America (the one by MoveOn.org where all the proceeds went to progressive organizations), and they're all over college radio stations and headline their own tours and such. Anyway, this guy, Eef Barzelay, gets two results above this journal, but that's it.
Three results later is my staff bio on The Slant's site. That is a lot more expected. I can see why people link to The Slant (pagerank whoring). But it is seriously surprising that anyone links to this journal. I guess there's a lot of internal linkage, when people say things like "barzelay passed this meme to me," but then people usually link to "http://www.livejournal.com/users/barzelay/", not "http://barzelay.livejournal.com".
Any theories on the matter?
Posted by Barzelay at 3:17 AM | Comments (0)