Submitted by brad on Tue, 2010-01-26 05:28.
I’m at DLD in Munich, and going to Davos tomorrow. While at DLD I made a brief mention during a panel on identity and tracking of my concept of the privacy dangers of the AIs of the future, which are able to extract things from recorded data (like faces) that we can’t do today.
I mentioned a new idea, however, which is a search engine which focuses on the negative, because though advanced algorithms it can tell the difference between positive and negative content.
We’re quite interested in dirt. Every eBay user who looks at a seller’s feedback would like to see only the negative comments, as the positive ones tell almost no information. eBay doesn’t want to show this, they want people to see eBay sellers as positive and to bid.
But a lot of the time if we are investigating a company we might do business with or even a person, we want to focus on the negative. A company with few complaints is of interest to us. AI software will exist to find such complaints, and possibly even to do things like understand photos and know which ones might be a source of embarrassment, or read on postings on message boards and tell which ones are damning. This is hard to do well today, but will change over time.
This will have deep consequences to concepts of reputation. Those with a big online presence certainly have bad stuff written by or about them out there. Normally, however, it is buried in the large volume of stuff, and doesn’t get high search engine rankings. However, our human thirst for gossip and dirt will result in some search engines will push it to the top. In addition, there will be those wanting to game this with deliberate libel of their enemies and competitors. Today they can do this but their libels will be hidden in the large volume of information.
Some have proposed that in the future it will be necessary to pay a service to libel you, and spread lots of false material that buries and discredits any libel left by enemies (as well as true negative comments.) The AIs may be able to spot the difference, but that’s an arms race which can’t easily be predicted.
It is likely that all the bad in our lives will haunt us even more than we already fear. Efforts by some countries to pass laws which let people delete alleged libels will not work, and may bring even more attention to the materials. While you might be able to remove your tag from a photo on facebook, once that photo makes it into a system that can do face recognition the tag will come back and do so in ways beyond your control.
Submitted by brad on Thu, 2010-01-21 16:28.
These days it is getting very common to make videos of presentations, and even to do live streams of them. And most of these presentations have slides in Powerpoint or Keynote or whatever. But this always sucks, because the camera operator — if there is one — never moves between the speaker and the slide the way I want. You can’t please everybody of course.
In the proprietary “web meeting” space there are several tools that will let people do a video presentation and sync it with slides, ideally by pre-transmitting the slide deck so it is rendered in full resolution at the other end, along with the video. In this industry there are also some video players where you can seek along in the video and it automatically seeks within the slides. This can be a bit complex if the slides try to do funny animations but it can be done.
Obviously it would be nice to see a flash player that understands it is playing a video and also playing slides (even video of slides, though it would be better to do it in higher quality since it isn’t usually full motion video.) Sites like youtube could support it. However, getting the synchronization requires that you have a program on the presenting computer, which you may not readily control.
One simple idea would be a button the camera operator could push to say “Copy this frame to the slide window.” Then the camera would, when there is a new slide, move or switch over there, and the button would be pushed, and the camera could go immediately back to the speaker. Usually though the camera crew has access to the projector feed and would not need to actually point a camera, in fact some systems “switch” to the slides by just changing the video feed. A program which sends the projector feed with huge compresion (in other words, an I frame for any slide change and nothing after) would also work well. No need to send all the fancy transitions.
But it would be good to send the slides not as mpeg, but as PNG style, to be sharper if you can’t get access to the slides themselves. I want a free tool, so I can’t ask for the world, yet, but even something as basic as this would make my watching of remote presentations and talks much better. And it would make people watching my talks have a better time too — a dozen or so of them are out on the web.
I’m in O’Hare waiting to fly to Munich for DLD. More details to come.
Submitted by brad on Fri, 2010-01-15 17:50.
There’s a phenomenon we’re seeing more and more often. A company screws over a customer, but this customer now has a means to reach a large audience through the internet, and as a result it becomes a PR disaster for the company. The most famous case recently was United Breaks Guitars where Nova Scotia musician David Carroll had his luggage mistreated and didn’t get good service, so he wrote a funny song and music video about it. 7 million views later, a lot of damage was done to United Airlines’ reputation.
I’ve done this myself to companies who refuse to fix things. I will write a page about the incident sometimes, and due to my high google pagerank, the page will show up high. Do a Google search for Qwest Long Distance and you’ll see the first hit is Qwest, and the 2nd is my boring but frustrating story of bad service. I’m not the only one to have done this. Over 200 people per month visit that page — which has been up for almost a decade — and you have to assume they have lost more business than it would have cost to make things right.
Now I think all good companies should make things right whenever they can to show that the errors are rare enough that they can afford to go the extra mile and fix them. If you won’t fix them, it means you must have a lot of them.
However, companies are soon going to realize that there are a whole raft of “minor celebrities” like David Carroll and even myself who can do far more damage than they can tolerate. Companies have always given top notch service to A-list celebrities, and even to B list. Not just gift bags at the Oscars. When I was kid, my father was A-list for a time in Canada, and that meant that when he got on a plane with a coach ticket, the flight attendant escorted him to first class. That was in the days before first class was always full due to upgrades, of course.
But there are tens of thousands, maybe hundreds of thousands of people who can be a risk for a company if they piss us off. All bloggers with a decent audience (and even some who have an audience that includes the A-list bloggers.) People with high search engine rank. People who can simply write well to get their story out there — in particular people who are good at making a story funny and entertaining. And of course, musicians and people who are good at video editing and producing viral videos. Perhaps them most of all.
So I predict that before long services will spring up to enumerate these D-list and E-list celebrities and potential celebs. Everybody will get graded. And a flag will show up in the customer service computer for the top few percentiles saying, “this one is an influencer.” It will say, “you are authorized, though you are just a script monkey customer rep, to do more for this customer.” Or you might just be direct right to a more powerful rep. This “long tail elite” may just start getting better service and even better deals, so long as they identify themselves first.
Companies have done this for some time based on how good a customer you are, ie. how much you spend. If you are a big spending customer, you get the magic 800 number or just get routed to the better service due to your frequent flyer number or even caller-ID. But I’m talking about doing this not just for those who spend a lot, but for those who influence a lot of spending — or could influence it in a negative way.
And of course they are working hard to make us identify ourselves in every transaction, just not yet for this. People who review products for a living will need to be sure they are anonymous when they buy and ask for service. But oddly, negative reviews from people who review stuff for a living are becoming less important than the horror story from the negative guy. Since most product reviewers at magazines are unwilling to go through the horrors of real customer service, they call the PR flacks and get top-rated service, and then explain in the review that they did this (if they are honest.)
If you’re not in the long-tail elite, this is all a bad sign. You’ll never get much satisfaction, and the number of horror stories on the net will go down below what the true level should be. Of course you will be able to join the long tail elite if you want to, since I am sure those who track it will note the names of people who regularly show up on consumer complaint message boards that have high readership or rank. But that’s a lot of work.
It doesn’t really do a lot of good for the rest of the world if perks are given to the long tail elite. Better just for companies to get good enough that they make mistakes rarely, and thus can afford to go the extra distance to fix them when it happens.
Submitted by brad on Tue, 2010-01-12 12:40.
This weekend is the Foresight Institute conference on molecular nanotechnology and AI. I am on the board of Foresight Institute and will be speaking on the latest developments in robocars at the conference, along with a raft of great speakers. If you are interested in futurist issues around AI, nanotech and other accelerating technologies, this is the longest running conference in the field and the place to be. The whole conference is just $175 and you can register for it here.
I will also be doing my general Robocar talk on Wednesday, February 24th at the “Homebrew Robotics Club” of Silicon Valley. This is a great group of people who hack robotics as a hobby, and it meets at the CMU building at NASA Ames Research Center. This event is free and open to the public.
Finally, in 2 weeks I will be attending the DLD 10 conference in Munich Germany, and may try to make my way into some parties at the World Economic Forum in Davos while doing a little Alpine road trip after DLD.
Note for those who can’t attend the Foresight conference, you can watch it stream live
Submitted by brad on Mon, 2010-01-11 19:31.
The pharma industry is littered with cases of drugs that showed good promise, but proved to be too dangerous when they got into human trials. Dangerous side effects will cancel development for most drugs. In some cases, such as Vioxx and Fen-Phen the dangerous effects were discovered later, and the drugs pulled from the market.
Some people got better on the drugs, others had bad side effects. Sometimes those bad side effects will be the result of various environmental factors, or perhaps rarely they will be bad luck. However, I suspect that some good portion of the time, they will be due to genetic factors in the test subject.
DNA sequencing is getting cheaper every day. Even today the whole genome can be done for $5,000 wholesale and many expect it to be hundreds before long. Collections of 600,000 to 1,000,000 SNPs can be read for a few hundred dollars.
It strikes me that the drug companies will want to make efforts immediately to get DNA samples, if they don’t have them, from all the people who participated in the trials of failed drugs, particularly those who had the bad side effects. And to get those samples sequenced. Because in some cases, they may well find a connection between the bad reaction and genetic patterns. They might find cases where all the side effects had one gene and all the regular reactions had another.
If they do find this, then suddenly they will have a billion dollar drug on their hands again, with much of the work already done, presuming the FDA and other regulatory agencies accept this approach. With the gene identified, making a test for it would be very cheap, and suddenly a useful drug might be available to those who have no problems with it. This might leave the people with the reacting DNA out in the lurch of course, and nobody is likely to try to find a drug for them in the immediate future.
If people get large DNA scans, those scans should remain in the possession of the patient or their doctor. There are already laws forbidding insurance companies in some jurisdictions from using DNA data to adjust insurance, but there will be powerful forces trying to reverse this.
DNA results will also explain differing efficacies of the drugs. It’s already been learned that many people need different doses of the same drug, and also that some drugs
work on men but not on women, for example.
I expect this will be standard practice for future drug trials, but my point today is that since many of these people are still alive, we can reach into the past and learn the truth about long-past drug trials as well, and perhaps get a brief flood of new useful substances as long as the patient is DNA typed in advance.
Submitted by brad on Sun, 2010-01-10 15:01.
I was contacted this week by the daughter of Don Watt, a well known Canadian graphic designer responsible for the branding and logos at many large companies including Loblaws and WalMart. Watt had just died at the end of December, and she was looking for more information from me about her father’s account of how he had secretly been the designer of the modern Canadian Flag. She contacted me, because in his story, my father, Charles Templeton, had been the go-between for Watt and the government leaders who picked the flag.
There’s a bit about Watt’s story in this Toronto Star Obituary for him. His version contradicts the official version quite markedly, and there is evidence on both sides. Many of the players, however, are deceased.
As the story goes, there was a plan to give Canada its own flag, replacing the colonial Red Ensign. A national contest was held, and people could submit designs. Don Watt worked at Hathaway-Templeton, a design firm co-founded by my uncle Bill Templeton in Toronto. My father was also working at Hathaway-Templeton at the time — his brother gave him a job to help him recover from his expensive 2nd place run for leader of the Ontario Liberal Party. (Or this may have been just before he worked there, during his various visits to his brother’s company.)
Watt came up with a flag design, supposedly like the current one but with blue bars (“From sea to sea” being the motto.) He says he did this because my father told him the government didn’t like the designs that were coming in through the competition. Watt did a design and my father took it to the leadership in Ottawa — the Liberal party was in power at the time under Prime Minister “Mike” Pearson, and they were the ones driving the controversial flag change. In one version of the story Pearson likes the design but prefers red bars (the Liberal party colours after all, but also the national colours.) Contradictory reports say Pearson liked an alternate design with blue bars but 3 maple leaves in the middle.
According to Watt, when his flag was chosen, it was also felt it would be bad if it were known that the design came from a professional logo designer, and worse, from one working for a design firm with many government contracts and tied to a prominent person in the Liberal party (ie. my father.) This was very far from the impression they had of a populist contest.
So it was, according to Watt, agreed that his role and my father’s would be kept silent. Many others had similar designs, bars and maple leaves in various sizes and configurations were common in many of them. Other names got the glory, but Watt was content with that.
Watt told his family, and later after the secrecy period was over, others in the industry but never made big public declarations about it. He told it to my cousin with whom he worked closely.
Is the story true? It’s hard to evaluate. The others did have similar designs, and even if Watt’s version is correct, I suspect they honestly believe it was their designs that were used. And of course, it may be true. From what little I know of Mr. Watt, he seems to have a good reputation and many other claims to fame, so it does not seem the sort of story he would need to make up.
However, my prime reason for some skepticism comes from the fact that my father never told me this story, nor put it in his memoirs. He wasn’t the sort of person to avoid bragging. If the story is true and he never told of it, he must have had a particularly strong sense of honour on the temporary bond of secrecy, and did not want to disrupt the official story. Nor did Watt until his later years.
Still, it was an interesting anecdote to hear. The Canadian experience is different from the U.S. one. Things like the Candian flag and
constitution are events in living memory, while for the USA, they are distant history. If true, it would be a fun thing to add to the list of family stories.
On a side note, the Canadian flag is considered one of the better ones from a graphic design standpoint by some.
Submitted by brad on Fri, 2010-01-08 21:32.
Everybody has an Avatar review. Indeed, Avatar is a monument of moviemaking in terms of the quality of its animation and 3-D. Its most interesting message for Hollywood may be “soon actors will no longer need to look pretty.” Once the generation of human forms passes through the famous uncanny valley there will be many movies made with human characters where you never see their real faces. That means the actors can be hired based strictly on their ability to act, and their bankability, not necessarily their looks, or more to the point their age. Old actors will be able to play their young selves before too long, and be romantic leading men and women again. Fat actors will play thin, supernaturally beautiful leads.
And our images of what a good looking person looks like will get even more bizarre. We’ll probably get past the age thing, with software to make old star look like young star, before we break through the rest of the uncanny valley. If old star keeps him or herself in shape, the skin, hair and shapes of things like the nose and earlobes can be fixed, perhaps even today.
But this is not what I want to speak about. What I do want to speak about involves Avatar spoilers. read more »
Submitted by brad on Thu, 2010-01-07 13:39.
Who writes a gift guide in January?
This one is not about specific gifts but rather a philosophy of gift giving. Every year at Seasons I run into the problem that decently well off adults have with gift giving. They will often ask for a list of possible gifts, not knowing what to get. And it can be hard to come up with the list because, frankly in these days of online ordering, if there’s something you really want that is not that expensive an item, you would have bought it already.
I believe that instead of giving people what they want, you should give them what you want to give them. This is not simply a desire to make gift giving more selfish, to making giving be in the interests of the giver. It is a statement that a proper gift should be an expression of yourself. It should be something you enjoy giving, and not just because you want to bring a smile to your recipient (though you should also want that.)
Christmas shoppers often overspend to buy fancy and overadvertised gifts which seem nice but which are never really used by the recipient. This is actually a major inefficiency in the economy, in that products are produced to little productive end other than to say, “see, I spent some serious money on you.” We’ll never stop that but we might redirect it.
Rule One: No money between adults
Adults should never give money. That’s not an expression of yourself, unless the expression is “I’m really rich.” The one exception is that parents can give life-changing amounts of money to children. A large sum can be an expression of your instinctive desire to make your kids’ lives better. Likewise employers can give cash bonuses. But those are not really gifts.
Rule One-A: Absolutely no gift cards.
Gift cards are like giving money, except they’re stupid money that can only be spent at one store. Stores love them because people leave $5 billion undredeemed on gift cards every year — down from $10 billion back when they were allowed to let gift cards expire. Many people think a gift card is better than money because it says, “OK, at least I know enough about you to get you a gift card at a store I know you like to shop at.” But that’s hardly saying much.
Gift cards from generic stores that sell something for everyone are right out. That’s just the gift of cash with a restriction. Gift cards might be more tolerable from extreme specialty stores, so that your picking of the store constitutes an expression of yourself and your relationship with the recipient.
Gift cards for services are a bit more tolerable. After all, it’s hard to give services otherwise.
Gift cards would make more sense if they were offered at a discount, so you could buy a $50 card usable after seasons for $40. They almost never do this though. But it still isn’t much of an expression of you.
Exception: If you truly need a gift that requires no expression of yourself, these might work. For example, gifts for people you don’t know well, gifts for a large group of co-workers etc. But what you’re saying here is, “listen, I wanted to give you a small gift but let’s face it, you weren’t high enough up on the list to merit a lot of time.”
Sometimes that’s a perfectly OK thing to say, if it’s a gift for your postal worker or the office.
In addition to services (which can’t be physically given) we’re seeing a lot more in online or virtual goods, such as downloadable games, e-books, apps, music and the like. Sometimes you can buy a code you can email, or if you know somebody’s account, you can add such items to it. This creates a conundrum. I would much rather somebody gave me an e-book over a paper book these days — I don’t have shelf space. Do you give these “items” because the only way to give them is virtually? Or is this a sign that these items are now removed from the set of things that should be given? It may be best to consider a middle ground which discourages virtual gifts if you can think of something else, but tolerates them if they really are the best thing.
It’s more acceptable if you can give a very specific item, like a song, book or game you picked. No iTunes gift cards, but instead codes for a specific item. One for which the choosing of the item said something about you.
Imagine a world of plenty
One way to think about this is to imagine a world where everybody you knew was a billionaire, with no want for money. What would you give then? You can see immediately how giving cash or a gift card would make little sense in that world. Truth be told, for most gifts, the cost of the gift is a blip in our net worths, so the real world is not too different from this one, unless you’ve giving a gift that’s so extravagant that it would be noticed in the annual budget, like a car.
Limit your manufactured items
The adage that the best gifts are ones you make yourself has much truth. And where you can afford the time for that, or have the skills for it, this is indeed the right way to go. But I don’t expect you to stop giving manufactured items entirely.
When you give a manufactured item, one that you can just point-click-and-ship, the gift is not the item, but what went into selecting it. The choice must depend not on your impressions of what they want, but rather ways in which you can be better (by some standards) at picking what they want than they are. You must find something that you knew was good but they didn’t.
So if you really know cameras, you probably know better how to shop for certain items. Buy something that you know more about than the recipient. Do you have good taste in clothing, or know where the best shops are? That’s where to buy your items. Not in a big box store or at the mall — anybody can go there.
Do you own and love a hot gadget that is not that popular yet? Get it, even though they might not love it as much. What you are sharing is your knowledge and love for the item, to let them see and experience a part of your life.
Books and other media
One particular type of manufactured item deserves special attention, namely books and media. Don’t give books of the type they like to read. Give the books and authors that you have read and love. Again, you might give them a book they would not love as much as the new hardcover from their favourite author. But the book, and the love for it, is an expression of you. If you know them intimately enough to know of books by their favourite writers which they themselves might not know about, that’s also OK.
It’s also OK if you are a better researcher to use that skill to surprise them. Perhaps you know more about how to look things up online, or read the right blogs where good people will recommend things. You can buy those things as long as your knowledge was special, and not generic.
Time rather than money
No gift expresses yourself more than time. A gift which is hard to choose and takes time says more than a gift which cost a lot. Most personalization requires time. Photography can be a great source for this — do you have a series of photos of the person, or places they love, that you could make into a slideshow or poster?
In addition, we all have too much stuff already, so don’t just give more “stuff” that they have to bring out when you visit. Unless they have a weight problem or a drinking problem, unusual foods and drinks that you enjoy can be a good expression of yourself. Of course, stuff you made yourself is even better.
Sometimes ya gotta break the rules
This is not the only way to give gifts. And nobody will figure the perfect gift for every person every time, not even close. This is just a direction to go, in opposition to what is most marketed — “impress them with how much money you were willing to spend on them.” And while your gift should be an expression of your personality, it would be wrong to think this means that gift giving is all about you, the giver. Rather the message is that it’s about both people.
In addition, many of these rules don’t apply to gifts to young children. First of all young children may not yet be able to understand an adult’s expression. And unlike adults they don’t have all that they want. They are easy to impress and very grateful.
Still, with children, look to gifts that you particularly enjoyed as a child, or in particular gifts which changed your life in a positive way. Did a football turn you into an athlete? Did a microscope make you a scientist? Pass it on.
Submitted by brad on Sat, 2010-01-02 14:10.
I have the photo archives of a theatre company I was involved with for 12 years. It is coming upon its 50th anniversary. I have a high speed automatic scanner, so I am going to generate scans of many of the photos — that part is not too hard.
Even easier for modern groups in the digital age, where the photos are already digital and date-tagged.
But now I want members of the group to be able to rotate the photos, tag them with the names of people in them and other tags, group them into folders where needed, and add comments. I can’t do this on my own, it is a collaborative project.
Lots of photo sharing sites let other people add comments. Few sites let you add tags or let trusted other people do things like rotations. Flickr lets others draw annotations and add tags/people which would make it a likely choice, but they can’t rotate.
Facebook has an interesting set of features. It’s easy to tag photos with friends’ names, and they get notified of it and the photos appear on their page, which is both good and bad. (The need for the owner to approve is a burden here.) Tagging non-friends is annoying because when somebody adds a real friend tag you must delete the old one, and the old ones may be spelled differently. However, the real deal-breaker on facebook is that the resolution is unacceptably small.
The recent killer feature I really want is face recognition, which makes tagging with people’s names vastly easier. Even the fact that it auto-draws boxes around the faces for you to tag is a win even without the recognition feature. The algorithms are far from perfect but they speed up the task a great deal. As such, right now an obvious choice is Picasa and Picasa Web Albums. however, while PWA lets you allow others to upload photos to your albums and tag their own photos, they can’t tag yours.
There is also face recognition in iPhoto, but I am not a Mac user so I don’t know if that can meet this need.
So right now two choices seem to be Flickr (but I must do all rotates) or a newly created Picasa account to which the password is shared. That’s a bit of a kludge but it seems to be the only way to get shared face recognition tagging.
Facebook can be integrated with a face recognizer called “Polar Rose” which also works with the 23hq photo sharing site. However, Facebook’s resolution is way, way too small and you need to approve tags.
I have not tried all the photo sharing sites so I wonder if people know of one that can do what I want?