@Randem

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita is a political scientist who is making a big name for himself using game theory, a branch of applied mathematics, to make shockingly accurate predictions.

A Math Trek story in Science News tells the story of one such prediction:

One of his most famous past predictions also concerned Iran. In 1984, the model predicted that when Ayatollah Khomeini died, an ayatollah named Hojatolislam Khameini and a little-known cleric named Hasheimi Rafsanjani would rise to succeed Khomeini as leaders of Iran. At the time, most experts considered that outcome exceedingly unlikely, since Khomeini had designated a different person as his successor. But in fact, when Khomeini died five years later, Rafsanjani and Khameini succeeded him.

GOOD Magazine calls him The New Nostradamus:

The criticism rankles him, because, to his mind, the proof is right there on the page. “I’ve published a lot of forecasting papers over the years,” he says. “Papers that are about things that had not yet happened when the paper was published but would happen within some reasonable amount of time. There’s a track record that I can point to.” And indeed there is. Bueno de Mesquita has made a slew of uncannily accurate predictions—more than 2,000, on subjects ranging from the terrorist threat to America to the peace process in Northern Ireland—that would seem to prove him right.

This kind of thing really excites me. As a computer programmer and a mathematics buff, game theory really stokes my fire. I first learned about game theory while reading the The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. Dawkins described how game theory could be used to reveal evolutionarily stable strategies — the real-world manifestation of natural selection.

Upon learning about game theory, I immediately recognized its potential predictive power. I was excited again recently, when a colleague emailed me a link to this essay by Rob Brown where he describes how he used a very simple implementation of game theory to create a movie recommendation system that was more accurate than that used by Netflix!

Yeah. Game theory is good stuff.

Labels: science, tech

“Never ascribe to malice that which can adequately be explained by incompetence.” -Napoleon Bonaparte

Labels: qotd

In the movie Brewster's Millions, Montgomery Brewster (Richard Pryor) learns that he is to be the heir to an enormous fortune, but there's a catch. He has 30 days to spend 30 million dollars. If he succeeds, he inherits 300 million, but if he fails, he has nothing. The hard part is that when the 30 days are over, he must have nothing to show for it. And he can't donate to charity or simply give it away. Likewise, tips must not exceed the standard rate of 20%. In other words, the money must be spent, not thrown away.

I wonder what creative ways my readers can think of to spend a large amount of money in a short period of time, and have nothing to show for it.

Here are some ideas I came up with:

• Buy rare coins and use them in parking meters or gum ball machines
• Stay in expensive hotels and get room service
  
• Drink lots of fine wine
• Smoke expensive cigars
• Or fly into outer space

What do you think? Got any great, money-wasting ideas? Let me know!

Labels: fun

The Council of Europe, a non-governmental body whose aim is to protect human rights, has adopted a resolution regarding the dangers of creationism in education.

You know it's gonna be good when it starts like this:

Creationism in any of its forms, such as “intelligent design”, is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are definitely inappropriate for science classes.

Oh, if only my fellow Americans had as much common sense.

Labels: common sense, science

Evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry thinks the human race is going to split into two distinct species — like in The Time Machine, by H. G. Wells — one attractive, intelligent, ruling elite, and the other an underclass of dim-witted, ugly, goblin-like creatures.

But then again, he also thinks that before that happens, we'll all become a single coffee-colored species that mixes all the qualities of all the different races we currently know. I have a hard time with the first 1,000 years of Curry's theory, but if you want to get into that, you can start by having a look at Ben Goldacre's response to Curry, at Bad Science.

Believe it or not, the part in which I'm interested is the two species, H. G. Wells, sci-fi future of humanity. In fact, I think he's right.

Background
First, I should explain that physical evolution has not stopped, but for humans it has taken a back seat. Biological evolution and natural selection require thousands of years for they newly evolved mutations to become prominent in the gene pool.

In contrast, psychological evolution and sexual selection shows it's evidence much faster. Mate choice and sexual selection show immediate results after one generation, and can thus become rather widespread after only a few centuries.

Also, in a world where the environment changes so much from one generation to the next, natural selection is too slow to evolve changes for adaptation. That leaves sexual evolution in the driver's seat, and that means the most attractive people will couple with equally attractive people, and unattractive people will be left to couple with equally unattractive people.

Evidence
The top half of today's children are physically superior not only to others, but to history's children of similar ages. Kids are developing at earlier ages. The beautiful people are getting more beautiful.

They're also getting smarter. Today's teenagers can operate the computers and program the VCRs and work the cell phones that drive their parents crazy. They're better at spelling, better at math, better at music.

But the bottom half of today's children are significantly inferior. Nearly 35 percent of American children ages 6 to 19 are overweight. Half of those—some 11 million children—are so overweight they’re classified as obese. They're getting shorter, and fatter, and more unhealthy.

They're intellectually inferior, too. Mark Morford at SF Gate writes:

But most of all, he simply observes his students, year to year, noting all the obvious evidence of teens' decreasing abilities when confronted with even the most basic intellectual tasks, from understanding simple history to working through moderately complex ideas to even (in a couple recent examples that particularly distressed him) being able to define the words "agriculture," or even "democracy." Not a single student could do it.

It gets worse. My friend cites the fact that, of the 6,000 high school students he estimates he's taught over the span of his career, only a small fraction now make it to his grade with a functioning understanding of written English. They do not know how to form a sentence. They cannot write an intelligible paragraph. Recently, after giving an assignment that required drawing lines, he realized that not a single student actually knew how to use a ruler.

So the smart, good-looking, physically fit people are getting smarter, better looking, taller, stronger. Meanwhile the fat, lazy, dumb people are getting fatter, lazier, sicker, shorter, and dumber.

Evolution
So indeed, I can see how the human race could easily be headed for a genetic split. After all, the smart, beautiful people don't want to be with the dumb, fat people, right? Sexual selection will continue to lead the superior genes to mix, while leaving the inferior genes with no better options.

Labels: science

“The people to fear are not those who disagree with you, but those who disagree with you and are too cowardly to let you know” -Napoleon Bonaparte

Labels: qotd

When in doubt, people look to the collective opinion for how to proceed. If a lot of people are wearing flip-flops and polo shirts, they're in style and we feel more comfortable wearing them ourselves. If a beggar is asking for food on a busy downtown street, it's likely we'll ignore him if that's what everyone else is doing. It's called social proof.

There was a UFO cult here in Chicago in the '60s. They believed the world would be destroyed in another great flood, but that 8 hours before it happened, a UFO would come by and pick up the cult members, taking them to safety. When they believed they were right, they did not accept new members. But after the big day came and went, with no flood and no UFO, they started actively recruiting new members. Why? Because they were looking for social proof.

And that's kinda like what happens in relationships. You know... when you're dating someone, and you have a fight, you turn to your friends and tell them your side — not because you want advice, but because you want their agreement, their social proof. (Social proof is even stronger when it comes from people we know.)

It's even worse when people break up. It's so easy to seek out all your friends and tell them horrible stories about the new ex-, not because it's information they need... but because you want them to support the breakup. You want their social proof.

It's perfectly natural, and largely unavoidable. Evolutionary psychologists will say it's built into our genes. I think they're right. It helps reduce the complexity of the number of decisions we have to make every day.

But in the end, we don't respect groupthink. After all, trends are easy to folllow, but think about the people who start them. Don't the majority of trends get started by the same minority of people? ...a few independent people, who are strong-willed enough to do what they like, or what they want, or what they think is right, regardless of the logic of the crowd?

You can't really blame people for following the groupthink. But you can't exactly respect them, either.

If the whole crowd is walking past a homeless man, deliberately ignoring him, you will think nothing of walking past and ignoring him too. But if the street were completely empty, just you and him, and you had to walk past him, would you still be able to pretend you didn't notice him asking for money? Or would you fish out some coins and try to help?

The problem with social proof is when it prevents us from doing the right thing, simply because nobody else is doing the right thing. And the evidence shows when we're alone and our actions don't match those from when we were in the group.

If you bad talk your ex- all day to your friends, and spend all day insisting you hate him, but then once you're alone and away from your friends you call him and try to apologize, that makes you a hypocrite. It makes you inauthentic.

Don't worry. It's not so bad. You're just like everyone else. Unfortunately, I'm looking for someone who stands out — who's not just like everyone else. I don't want just another hypocritical face in the crowd.

Labels: life, psychology

This is fun. Here are a sampling of recent search engine searches that have led people to Randem.net:

• can i slay them? and odor and how should they die
• where do peanuts come from
• where peanuts come from
• how to make an electric chair fun night
• a beer is better than a woman reasons
• new itunes 7.4.10
• rockafeller center christmas event
• the 50 funniest moments in child pornography
• keyword search shortcut google maps
• the new at&t complaints
• 52 reasons to have a beer over a woman
• punishment for desecration
• igoogle skins
• at&t dsl promotion/ complaints
• bible literal
• flickr feed igoogle
• roman excess
• daughter into slavery
• people who need to have the last word

In some cases, it troubles me what people are searching for online.  I have to assume that 50 funniest moment in child pornography is a joke, because it's too disturbing to take seriously.  But why would someone be searching for "daughter into slavery"?

Labels: fun

This is an awesome flyer for an awesome dog. It even has an awesome web site.

I wouldn't be surprised if this dog had real, ultimate power, and occasionally flipped out and killed people... maybe with a roundhouse kick to the head!

Labels: fun, humor

No quarterback in NFL history has beaten 31 other teams. Granted that stat is only noteworthy as of the moment that there were 31 teams to beat, which would 1999, when the new Browns took the field.

Nevertheless, the bizarre part is that Brett Favre, Payton Manning, and Tom Brady have all beaten 30... and all three of them are playing their unbeaten opponent this week.

Will the three best quarterbacks in the game today all go into the history books for the same event on the same day?

Labels: football, sports

Today I was inspired to have a look at some of recent history's worst book titles. Here are some samples of what I found:

Fart Proudly (link)

How Green Were The Nazis? (link)

Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Seaweed Symposium (link)

How To Good-Bye Depression: If You Constrict Anus 100 Times Everyday. Malarkey? or Effective Way? (link)

Damn. That last title was so funny we have to take a moment and read the book's description:

I think constricting anus 100 times and denting navel 100 times in succession everyday is effective to good-bye depression and take back youth. You can do so at a boring meeting or in a subway. I have known 70-year-old man who has practiced it for 20 years. As a result, he has good complexion and has grown 20 years younger. His eyes sparkle. He is full of vigor, happiness and joy. He has neither complained nor born a grudge under any circumstance. Furthermore, he can make love three times in succession without drawing out.

The winner, as far as I'm concerned, is the children's book depicted at the right.

Labels: fun, humor

I really love the internet. Where else can the unsung heroes of society really get an opportunity to exploit their talents, and have fun doing it?

Today's unsung hero is the instructional poster artist. You know, like the guy that draws the pictures on that laminated card in the back of the airplane seat. Or, in this case, the web page illustrating how to steal the arm rest from the passenger next to you.

Labels: fun, humor

Yesterday's 60-Second Science podcast at Scientific American discussed the "six basic rules of persuasion" that Joe Torre used to his advantage. The reason I find this particularly interesting is because this comes from the book Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion, which I am currently in the middle of reading.

In fact, it's all the more fascinating, given that last night I read about marketing research companies sending money with their surveys, and then this morning my coworker mentioned that he just received money in an envelope that he was about to feed to the shredder.

Labels: corporate evil, life, psychology

A theme I love to go on about is how the things you own end up owning you. Material possessions can serve a purpose, but more and more they becomes suffocating.

Naturally, I took an interest in this Penelope Trunk's recent entry at the Brazen Careerist, in which she offers five steps to taming materialism, including:

3. Understand the concept of aspirational clutter. Get reality and throw stuff out.
So much of what we hold on to is what we wish we were using — objects that commemorate a life we aspire to but do not have. The six books we bought a year ago and haven’t read, for example. We don’t want to admit that we’re not making time to read, so we save them. The treadmill is another object that is loaded because if you throw it out you’re admitting to yourself that you’re never going to use it. Keeping it, even unused, maintains your dream of getting into shape.

This is something I try to do often in my life. I take an inventory of the things around me and ask myself "am I really using that, or am I just holding on to an idea?" When I'm honest with myself (as I try to be) the reality of the answer is sometimes surprising.

Labels: common sense, life

I'm in stitches over here after watching an improv group of over 100 men mocking Abercrombie & Fitch. Just watch.

Labels: corporate evil, fun, humor

I often hear people try to encourage each other, offering the advice that you have to love yourself for who God made you. Mother's tell this to their child who's shorter than everyone else his age. Wives tell this to their balding husbands. Etc.

Well, to be frank, I think it's a bunch of bullshit. We are our parents' offspring. Our traits, our appearances, and even in large part our personalities are products of a genetic coupling process that is well documented and understood. If your mother had a dominant gene for brown eyes and recessive for blue, and your father had brown eyes with recessive for green, then you're going to have a very high probability of having brown eyes, with a slight chance for green, and you will never have a chance at blue eyes.

That's science. It's not some random, magical experience. It's not like you get pregnant, and then God sets up a workshop in your womb, playing games of chance for 9 months until a baby is born. If that were the case, white couples would be able to have black babies, and asian couples could have arabic babies. That doesn't happen.

You are the product of genetics. And as such, there is no divine plan for who you are. Therefore, choosing to just take what life gives you is living by default. It's refusing to take responsibility for yourself.

I say, stop living by default. Start living by design. Live where you live because you choose to live there. Look how you look because you choose to look that way.

You don't like be overweight? or underweight? Stop whining about it. Stop blaming it on your McDonalds, or your wife's excellent cooking, or the price of healthy food. Stop blaming God for making you a miserable fat person, or an insecure skinny person. Take responsibility. Change your diet. Start going to the gym. Design your body how you want it.

You don't like being poor? You don't like living week to week? You hate not having extra money to go out to dinner or spend a night at a hotel? Stop blaming your job, or your education, or your family's expectations. Take responsibility. Look for a better job. Get more education. Change your spending habits. Be more frugal. Stop buying every cute singing fish that you see in the line at Wal-Mart. Design your finances how you want them.

Have you ever known someone who got plastic surgery done? A facelift, or a nose job, or a beast augmentation, or lyposuction? Sometimes the work looks natural, and sometimes you can tell it's not. (Think Cher...) But I have never known someone who got cosmetic surgery and wasn't happier for doing so. In fact, I remember seeing a piece on tv about a real life couple who had sunk hundreds of thousands of dollars into cosmetic surgery to make themselves literally look like Ken and Barbie™, but even though their looks were obviously cosmetic, it didn't stop the couple from being truly happy with themselves. Instead of being insecure, they are confident and outgoing.

You have the power to choose your life. Stop complaining about your situation. Stop accepting that you have no control. Stop being a victim and start being a cause. It's very empowering when you choose to take responsibility for yourself. Instead of being miserable with the life you have by default, you can be truly happy with the life you have by design.

Labels: common sense, life, philosophy

I love it when women talk about having "the balls" to do something. Even though it makes absolutely no sense, the point still gets made. And somewhere in the depths of my imagination, there's a cartoonish moment of humor while I imagine the female who said it looking at herself in the mirror, admiring her ball sack...

Okay, this week I went 10 and 3, a serious improvement over the decidedly mediocre results I've been getting the past few weeks. And with Bears loss coming on a 55-yard field goal with 4 seconds left on the clock, I feel like I was within 4 seconds of going 11-2 for the week.

Vinny Testaverde really came to life for the Panthers, practically out of nowhere. I won't be surprised if having him at quarterback marks a big turnaround for their season.

And Testaverde's old team, the Jets, didn't put up as much of a fight against the Eagles as I thought they would... but the fact that the Eagles only won by one field goal seems to be proof that my assessment of them was right.

Otherwise, for the rest of the teams in the rest of the games, it looks like everything shook out pretty much how I thought it would.

Labels: football, sports

I posted two years ago about the Pareto Principle — also known as the 80/20 rule — pointing to an article by Richard Koch suggesting we can apply this business rule to our daily lives.

The Pareto Principle states that, for many events, 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. This effect is often noticed in business, where 80% of your sales come from 20% of your clients. Or, 80% of a project's gains come from the first 20% of your development efforts.

The logical extension of this thought is that you burn 80% of the effort on the project finishing that last 20%.

So what if we applied this to our lives? What is the value proposition?

It's not hard for me to imagine that 80% of my happiness comes from the things I do 20% of the time. And likewise, it's not hard to imagine that 80% of my positive interactions come from that quality core — those 20% of people in my life who add value.

So the question naturally follows, what is that remaining 80% doing for me? What makes of that 80% of things I do, where I'm burning the majority of my energy to get a minimal positive return?

Are there frustrating, difficult, or unrealistic activities I'm participating in that are burning a lot of time and energy but not paying off? Are there people who are eating up the bulk of my time while returning very little happiness or positive interaction?

It's pretty interesting when you look at your life through the filter of such fundamental economic business principles.

If you burn 80% of your effort on a measly 20% return, it seems theoretically sound that you could cut those activities completely, in favor of taking on four new projects, goals, or activities. If each new activity returned that same 80% benefit from an investment of 20%, your improvement would be an astonishing 320%.

Essentially, by trimming the costly negative activities and replacing them with a light interest in four new activities, your quality of life could be 16 times better!

It's an interesting thought.

Labels: life

soporific
adj
1. causing or tending to cause sleep.
2. pertaining to or characterized by sleep or sleepiness; sleepy; drowsy.
3. something that causes sleep, as a medicine or drug

for example:
My coworker's constant, apologetic droning has had a soporific effect on everyone involved in today's meeting.

Labels: fun

Okay, so I got the iPhone. It's just a phone, a set of ear buds, a USB cable, and a cradle, all tucked neatly into a very small box.

I bought it from an AT&T store and asked if it would require a new contract or if I could just continue the contract I already have. The representative who sold it to me told me I could just pick up my existing contract where it is now.

Then she told me it's really easy to activate the phone, you just plug it into iTunes and do it all from there. Wow, that sounded cool.

Well, I got it home and plugged it into my G4 iBook. Instead of activating iTunes and showing the new device, it brought up iPhoto... as if I'd plugged in a camera! A little digging around on Google revealed that iPhone requires iTunes version 7.3 or later, but that version of iTunes won't run on OS 10.3.9, the version on my iBook.

Okay then. I pulled out my PC and plugged it in. (Yes, I love my Mac so much that I don't even plug in the Windows computer.) Booted it up and went to install the latest iTunes. The latest version, 7.4.10, requires XP but I still use Windows 2000. Fortunately, iTunes 7.3 (the minimum required version) can run on Windows 2000 with service pack 4.

All right then. That meant I had to install Service Pack 4. So I downloaded the service pack and installed it. Then I downloaded iTunes 7.3 and installed it. Finally... I'm on my way. Then I plugged in the iPhone and...?

Unrecognized USB device. A little more research revealed that the phone itself isn't supported in Windows 2000. It requires XP or Vista, or Mac OS 10.4.10.

Final verdict? If I want to use my new iPhone, I need to upgrade my computer(s) or buy a new one. I'm not ready to do that yet.

Fortunately, I was able to install the latest iTunes at work this morning and activate the phone. To cap off the entire experience, I do, in fact, have to start a new 2-year agreement.

So on the plus side, I finally have my iPhone, but on the minus side, I can't sync with it at home, and I'm now locked in to AT&T for two more years, unless I pay the early termination fee.

And so, as far as user experience upon purchasing a new iPhone, I give it a 2 out of 5. It's horribly non-Apple to choose not to support older versions of the Mac OS — particularly previous subversions of the current version! It's even worse to make those requirements so hard to find — I should not have to search Google to find a way to activate my $399 cell phone.

The cardinal sin, though, is the much talked about partnership with AT&T. For Apple, a company known for user experience, locking Apple users in to a company with a reputation for horrible customer service is unforgivable.

Labels: iphone, reviews, tech, wishlist

I know that it's common for parents to take their kids in the bath tub with them, or to bring them into the bathroom while they use the toilet instead of letting the child get into trouble out in the house while they're stuck on a toilet.

If you're getting dressed for work and the baby is crying in the next room, I can understand how you might run and grab the kid without thinking to cover yourself up first.

But at what age does that stop?  Should you be naked in front of your three year old?  Your five year old?  Your seven year old?

Let me know what you think.

Labels: life

In case you weren't aware, today is Blog Action Day, a day on which members of the blogosphere are enouraged to put the single issue of the environment on everyone's mind. I didn't realize this until I started reading my feeds today and seeing some of the inane things people have to say.

Don't flush the toilet?
Glen at LifeDev encourages his readers not to flush their toilet, offering this rule of thumb: "If it's yellow, let it mellow; if it's brown, flush it down." Yeah, right. I don't want to smell a bathroom that sits all day fermenting the scent of urine. If you don't like flushing, why not just piss in the back yard?

Newspapers for mulch?
Diane at DIY Life suggests we use old newspapers as mulch, but warns "it takes a lot of old papers to mulch even a fairly small garden bed", so get started saving papers now! I don't know how many she considers to be a lot, but at $0.25 for the daily and $1.00 for Sunday, it might be cheaper to just buy the mulch, and your neighbors will appreciate it. Want to do the environment a favor? Stop buying the paper... read it online.

The end is near?
One of the more entertaining blog entries I've read on the topic comes from Dan at A is for Atheist. It's an open letter to fundamentalist Christians, begging them to stop destroying the environment on the off chance that they happen to be wrong, and the end isn't as near as they thought.

Labels: fun, life

I got an email from an old friend today, asking if I had gotten an iPhone yet. (I guess that's the nice thing about having a web site and blog... people can keep up with you even if you're a little out of touch.)

Having learned that I hadn't taken the plunge (though I was really close to doing it on Saturday) she advised me to do it, saying that she bought one, and her boyfriend liked it so much that he got one the following day.

But the real gem is that she sent along a link to a great additional reason for buying an iPhone: the power of unlocking it. Sometimes one URL can say so much. So guess where I'm going at lunch time.

Labels: iphone, tech, wishlist

I'm not doing much better than a coin flip, and more importantly, it appears that nobody is even reading these football related posts. And rightly, you can't blame people for not reading predictions from a guy who knows as much as a coin... thought the commentary is the part I put the most work into.

At any rate, unless I get all my picks right and a bunch of people find it interesting and start reading it, this is my last week doing football picks. I could be using that time and energy to do something else and add more value to my web site.

So without further ado...

St. Louis at Baltimore
The Rams are winless, and they're going with Gus Frerotte at quarterback. It must be a spillover effect the Bush administration has had on our nation. I'm waiting for Linehan to say "my generals say we don't need more defense, and I've got to trust my generals." Hah! Steve McNair needs only one rushing touchdown to tie for third all-time among quarterbacks. I wouldn't be surprised if he got it against the Rams, and got the Ravens their 100th win as a franchise.

Minnesota at Chicago
Ah, this should be good. One guy named Adrian Peterson showing another guy named Adrian Peterson how it's done. The Vikings are going to run up the yards against an ailing Bears defense that's struggling against the run. Minnesota would do best to stick with their ground game, rushing on 100% of offensive plays, but there are few coaches in the NFL with the balls for such a plan, and that means quarterback Kelly Holcomb will be throwing into a Bears secondary that still makes lots of interceptions. I expect to see Brian Griese in a game manager role much like that of Trent Dilfer on the 2000 Ravens, and the Bears will win by reducing miscues.

Miami at Cleveland
Miami is a ship with no sail, lost at sea, while Cleveland is a decent team that just needs a few key skill position players and some time to gel. A strong locker room leader with a good work on defense could transform the Browns. For now, they'll get back to .500 with a win over Miami.

Washington at Green Bay
Tough call. Green Bay was exposed last week, while Washington came to life. In my opinion, the Packers aren't as good as their 4-1 record, but the Redskins aren't as good as their 34-3 victory. Rule of thumb, though. Gotta pick the team with the better record playing at home. Packers.

Houston at Jacksonville
The false hope in Houston is done. They're at the bottom of a really tough division. Playing two games against the Colts, two against the Titans, and two against the Jaguars every year leaves them fighting for scraps. They need to build that team toward consistently beating somebody, and I say the Jaguars are the easiest of the three. If they can consistently beat the Jags, then they move on to overtake the Titans, and then eventually unseat the Colts in first place. (By this time, Payton Manning will have retired.) Unfortunately, I don't see any evidence that they've been built to play in their division, whereas the Jaguars have.

Cincinnati at Kansas City
Two talented teams playing way below their level. The Chiefs starting building something, winning two in a row, but then they lost last week to Jacksonville. Cincinnati lost their last two, but they're coming off of a bye week. They both suck. Kansas City has home field, and they're starting to build some offense so I'm picking the Chiefs over the Bengals.

Philadelphia at New York Jets
Weren't the Eagles at the Meadowlands last week? And they lost. This is another instance where both teams suck and I've got to go with the home team. Jets over Eagles.

Tennessee at Tampa Bay
Vince Young has the Titans rolling tough, but Jeff Garcia is doing the same for Tampa. I'm a Bucs fan, and they have home field, so I've got to pick Buccaneers to defeat the Titans.

Carolina at Arizona
Call me crazy, but I like what Arizona has been doing. And this week their home field advantage is huge. Cardinals to beat the Panthers.

New England at Dallas
This is my must-watch game of the week. Two good quarterbacks throwing to two top-class receivers. This should be an exciting air game, even if the points won't compare. After their performance last week, Dallas looks like a pretender. New England is the real deal, and they'll prove it this week.

Oakland at San Diego
San Diego finally woke up last week, and they're going to play like they mean it this week. The Raiders always fall for LT's trickery. I expect the Chargers to crush the Raiders, though probably not as badly as they did to Denver.

New Orleans at Seattle
The Saints are awful this year. But the Seahawks aren't exactly rockin' the joint. I think this might be an opportunity for the Saints to get their first win.

New York Giants at Atlanta
The Falcons are going to have a lousy year. I hate to keep repeating it, but this is the Michael Vick effect. The Giants are the better team.

Labels: football, sports

This has got to be one of the coolest free web site tools I've seen in a very long time.

You add their code you your site, displaying a thumbnail map with dots for visitors like the one you see at the very bottom of this page. Already kinda cool being able to see those dots locating your visitors... but it gets better.

Clicking on that thumbnail will bring up a Google Earth mashup, displaying an icon on the location of all of the day's visitors, and clicking on any one of those will tell you what page the visitor last viewed.

Sure, I've got log analysis tools and what-not, but those don't give me the real-world info I'm interested in. With FEEDJIT, I can look at the map and immediately get a sense of how varied the locations of my readers are, and also see what my most popular pages are, without the complicated statistical analysis of the irrelevant data provided by WebTrends and similar software.

Labels: dev

The combined area of Wal-Mart stores is larger than the island of Manhattan, according to this info-graphic.

Labels: corporate evil

Labels: fun, humor, politics

I just stumbled onto this exhaustive index of resources, specifications, and tutorials for web design.

Labels: dev

Since I've been on a rampage against fundamentalism this week, perhaps it's only fair to offer a different perspective that occurred to me recently.

As I read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins, and now as I'm finishing up The Mating Mind by Geoffrey Miller, the evolutionary evidence continues to mount in support of the idea that our genes are programmed for survival and for mating.

The case is built that regardless of our modern concept of morality, our nature is to be selfish rather than to share, to philander rather than be monogamous, and at times to fight, to lie, to steal, etc.

In the view of our modern, evolved, moral sensibilities, these things are sins. Therefore, evolution actually lends credibility to the teaching that man is sinful in nature. Quite literally!

While literal inerrancy of the bible cannot be supported by modern science (see my recent posts) it is nevertheless quite interesting to notice how much of what modern science has given us actually lends support to biblical teachings.

For instance, in Deuteronomy, the people are instructed to bury their excrement outside the camp, whereas before this they paid no mind to such things. Today, we can easily recognize the medical good sense in doing this to prevent disease.

Or, revisiting the topic of the blood type diet, Peter D'Adamo claims that people of Jewish descent primarily have Type B blood. Is it a coincidence that the diet commanded for them was made up of dairy products, whole grains, and legumes? And that pork — considered bad for every blood type — was forbidden?

This only scratches the surface. Belief in science does not have to mean the negation of belief in God or the Bible. If one takes a bigger view, and considers the advances of modern science, rather than dismissing them dogmatically, it actually makes the Bible a pretty cool book!

Labels: religion, science

Gary McWilliams at The Wall Street Journal writes that the Wal-Mart era is drawing to a close, suggesting that the retail giant is stuck in a low-price rut, while “Rival retailers lured Americans away from Wal-Mart's low-price promise by offering greater convenience, more selection, higher quality, or better service.”

As a result, American shoppers are increasingly looking for qualities that Wal-Mart has trouble providing. "For the first time in a long time, quality has a chance to gain on price," says Lee Peterson, a vice president at Dublin, Ohio-based brand consulting firm WD Partners Inc.

With their eroding influence, Wal-Mart is losing clout with manufacturers. According to Burt P. Flickinger III, “four of the top 10 consumer products companies say they can move merchandise faster with Walgreen and CVS.”

Let's not forget their dramatic rise to the top, though. The article at WSJ includes an animation showing Wal-Mart's growth, like that of a virus, over the years.

Labels: corporate evil

I have a problem with the concept of Biblical inerrancy. There are many arguments as to why the Bible is or is not the inerrant, authoritative, and infallible. To quote one source:

The combination of source ambiguity, intentional translation errors, copying errors, symbolic vs. literal interpretation, multiple authorship, multiple versions, interpretation conflicts, internal conflicts, the nature of truth, etc. make it quite impossible to prove that a particular passage in an English translation of the Bible is inerrant. Or if it is regarded as inerrant, it is not necessarily obvious how the passage is to be interpreted.

But before we argue about what color carpet to get, I want you to convince me I need carpet in the first place. In other words, why are we wasting our time trying to prove whether or not the Bible is inerrant? Why is either side engaging in a debate over a conclusion built on an assumption?

I have yet to see anyone establish that it matters. This argument rages onward about whether we should read and interpret the Bible literally, or if it's little more than a collection of literature which happens to contain the occasional positive message.

Doesn't the term Christian simply refer to “a follower of the teachings of Christ?” So couldn't you continue to be a good Christian even if you ripped out 90% of the Bible and just kept the parts in red? I argue that you'd be a better one.

The difference is important, of course. It's monumental. If you believe in the Bible as the inerrant, infallible word of God, then you must believe that the world was created in exactly 6 days, was completely wiped out in a worldwide flood shortly after, and then, over the ensuing 5000 years (give or take), we managed to repopulate the entire planet with animals and insects and birds and trees and flowers — in spite of scientific evidence saying the earth is billions of years old, and that all life evolved from a common genetic pool... and that at no time in the entire history of the world was there ever a flood to cover the entire earth.

If you believe the Bible is a literal, factual account of history, you have to believe that people used to live to 900 years old, even though the Jewish calendar wasn't invented until thousands of "years" after those accounts were told. You also have to believe in talking donkeys, talking bushes, giants, miracles, and resurrection after death... all of which was apparently commonplace, and yet as soon as written history began, no evidence of any such business was recorded.

If you believe the Bible is the inerrant, infallable, authoritative word of a higher power, then you have to explain this list of 388 examples of verses in the Bible that contradict each other. Why can't God get his story straight?

But nevermind all of that. That all goes on the assumption that it is necessary to prove that the Bible is or is not 100% literal and accurate. I haven't seen that done. Not anywhere. People believe it because they're told to believe it. And then later, when they've built a system of beliefs around it being true, they find themselves willing to defend its trueness because having it proven untrue would unfix their beliefs.

The only reason it matters whether or not the Bible is a good story book, or it's the exact written instruction book of the big invisible man in the sky, is because if it is, in fact, completely literal and accurate, it would mean that our science is wacked and useless, it would mean that slavery is okay, it would mean that women are lesser beings and it's okay to rape them. And pardon my bluntness, but it would also mean that this God fellow is a real asshole.

Who ever made it necessary that the Bible was inerrant? Certainly it had to be some homophobic, racist, misogynist prick who wanted to own slaves and beat women. No? Claiming inerrancy in the Bible is pointless unless one also claims inerrancy in one's interpretation of it..

The burden of proof is on the person proposing the idea. From what I've seen, the only proof offered that the Bible is inerrant is... wait for it... quotations from the Bible! It's a circular reference!

You can't simply propose that a thing is true, and then use the fact that the thing calls itself true as evidence of its trueness! That's utter crap.

If you're a believer in Christ then be a believer in Christ. Forget all that other nonsense. All you need are the parts in red, which are just as good to a non-Christian.

Labels: common sense, religion

“If God kills, lies, cheats, discriminates, and otherwise behaves in a manner that puts the Mafia to shame, that's okay, he's God. He can do whatever he wants. Anyone who adheres to this philosophy has had his sense of morality, decency, justice and humaneness warped beyond recognition by the very book that is supposedly preaching the opposite.” -Dennis McKinsey

Labels: qotd, religion

The Freedom From Religion Foundation has put up their first ever non-theistic billboard in Madison, Wisconsin. It will be up from Oct 2-16 on the feeder road off the West Beltline next to Culver's Restaurant, facing west.

They'll also be having a meeting on Oct 12-14 in Madison. Details can be found on their web site.

Labels: religion

What in the heck is going on? After the unpredictable outcome of Sunday, now the Dallas steamroller almost coughs up a win to the worst team in the league? Thanks to Nick Folk's 53 yard field goal, I come out of the week 7-for-14.

Let's just consider the stats. Bills quarterback Trent Edwards passed for 176 yards. The Bills had no passing touchdowns and no rushing touchdowns. And yet they had 24 points on the board!

Coming into the week, the Bills were 1-3, with their only win coming against the New York Jets, in a game where they'd scored 17 points — their highest point total so far this season. Yet somehow, undefeated Dallas comes to town with their 4-0 record, and gives the Bills 24 points, and allows them to hold a lead right up until the game clock expires?

Dallas came into the game scoring no less than 34 points per game, and yet they let the Buffalo Bills hold them to 22 points, and allowed their win to ride on the shoulders of a last minute 53-yard field goal attempt as the clock expires? What the hell is going on?!

Dallas came into the game with a plus-7 turnover ratio, but in last night's game they had a minus-5, thanks to a fumble and five interceptions.

Look, this is Buffalo. You can't lose the easy ones. Next week the undefeated Cowboys will face the undefeated Patriots. Any guesses who I think is going to win that one? Hint: won't be Dallas.

Labels: football, sports

Thanks to Chicagoist for sharing this most hilarious diversion in my day.

I'm not going to spoil the surprise. Just pick up your phone and call 312-884-3070. It will only take two minutes out of your day, and it'll put a big smile on your face.

Labels: fun

This weekend, I asked a Christian to explain to me how he, a creationist, could be such an advocate of Peter D'Adamo's blood type diet, given the clear evolutionary foundation? I wasn't trying to stir up trouble. I wanted a legitimate explanation of how one could reconcile the two mutually exclusive concepts.

Instead of an answer, of course, I got argumentativeness and dogma. But why should I expect anything less from one of God's spokespeople? I was accused of "misquoting out of context" [sic]. Then, the completely irrelevant, but always effective challenge was issued: "If you have any scripture to prove me wrong, I am quite willing to read and accept it."

[climbing onto soap box]

I am so fucking tired of people using that non-logic as if it lent some sort of credibility to what they said. It's flawed. Disproving an antithesis does not, by proxy, prove the thesis. Asking someone to prove you wrong does not, in its failure, prove you right.

If I insist that unicorns exist, and I challenge you to prove me wrong, you can't. There is no evidence that will prove they don't exist. Does that make me right? Of course not, because there's no evidence to prove that they do exist, either.

Worse, the Bible is a collection of writings by over 40 different authors, the newest of which was nearly 2000 years ago, and the oldest was almost twice that! There was no medical industry, no internet, no human genome project, no automobile, no Apollo moon landing.

The Bible is full of hateful instructions. It teaches about killing people, even including your own child. The Bible gives an okay to selling your daughter into sexual slavery. It teaches that women are inferior, should not work, should not teach, and should not speak.

Even if your response was valid (it wasn't) and there were something to prove, proving that lectins interact differently with antigens depending on the blood type specified by some gene on your DNA is hard enough to do in a laboratory, under a microscope, with all of written history and scientific discovery at your fingertips. Do you seriously expect me to pull out a Bible, flip to Genesis 4, and find evidence to support either side of the debate?

No. I challenge you, dear Christian, to prove to me scientifically that any of that crap you say is true. Come on... any old thing will do: show me Noah's ark or the garden of Eden. Show me evidence of a great flood -- you can't, because all geological data shows no evidence of any worldwide flood. Even the shroud of Turin turned out to be a fake, from 8 centuries after the time of Jesus.

Labels: religion

Ya know, right when you think you've got it all figured out, everybody goes and changes. There's no consistency in today's NFL.

The Bears suck and then they beat Green Bay. The Chargers can't do anything, and then they run up a 41-3 rout of the Broncos. And Washington looked like a pathetic group of losers who the Lions should have been able to beat, but instead, the Lions got squashed.

I should have known better (in fact, I know I mentioned it) than to think Kitna's spunk could overcome the Matt Millen effect in Detroit.

Once again — assuming I get my pick for tonight right — I'll be looking at 7-for-7. I'm starting to think I don't know as much as I thought I did about this stuff. ;-)

Labels: football, sports

I proudly wore my Cubs jersey in public today. And I accessorized it will a lovely brown bag.

Some people will blame Piniella for pulling Zambrano too early in game 1, but I think that's misplaced. The reason they're saying that is because Marmol gift wrapped two runs, and if Zambrano hadn't been pulled, Marmol wouldn't have been in there. But let's be realistic - Marmol had an unreal ERA for most of the year, and he decided to fall apart at the end.

But the real choke happened in game two. After Lilly's meltdown on the mound, the message was sent. The team deflated right on the spot. It was reminiscent of the deflation they dealt themselves after the Bartman incident, only this time there was no fan to be a, ahem, scapegoat. They can only blame themselves.

Still, there's reason to have heart. Lou Piniella came to Chicago and took a team that finished the previous season in last place to the playoffs. Another year or two with him at the helm should be long enough for the team to build that bond that carries a team to a championship.

So repeat after me, Chicago. “Oh well. Maybe next year.”

Labels: baseball, chicago, sports

“I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world.” -Richard Dawkins

Labels: qotd

As I read about human evolution in such important books as The Selfish Gene, The Mating Mind, and The Red Queen, I am finding a new appreciation for the extremely complicated and powerful functions of which the human mind is capable. Humans have evolved complex abilities to infer a great deal of information from small, key indicators, many of which our conscious minds are not even aware.

Indeed, the conclusion reached by Malcolm Gladwell in Blink holds true that while careful consideration may be the best strategy for simple choices, complex decisions are best made not by considering all the options and weighing pros and cons, but by simply trusting your instinct.

For instance, as is pointed out by Gerry Spence in How to Argue and Win Every Time (as well as books on body language) the body gives away the truth even the mouth is lying. Our instincts are looking out for our best interest even when our conscious mind is unaware of being lied to.

It is with that thought in mind that I continue to find myself amazed at the persistence with which people try to mislead one another — especially in those times when the deception is so obvious!

Take for example the classic suicidal cry for help. When a person genuinely does not want to live any more, they quietly and calculatingly set out on a path toward that end. People who talk about suicide, on the other hand, are not serious about doing it. When they do try, it's always a token effort like eating painkillers or cutting wrists. The talkers don't like the risk of actually succeeding. But don't we always see through it?

Similarly, we all know that friend who is always up for coming along, but never has money. And when he promised to return the favor next time, you end up paying for him. Again. Still, he's a good friend, and you like having him around. But when you're talking about going bowling or meeting at the bar and someone says you should invite that guy, you all get an uncomfortable pit in your stomachs. Sure, he's a friend and you want him along, but your instincts are already forewarning you that you're going to be taken advantage of.

And when you run into your ex, and she starts telling you about all the wonderful things that have been happening in her life, doesn't it go without saying that she's embellishing (maybe even outright lying) in order to make the appearance that she's got her life together and doesn't need you? But the reality is that if you didn't matter and she didn't need you, she would have had no reason to bring any of that up. Indeed, the very fact of her telling you all of that nonsense is proof of the doublespeak. You don't need to cognitively work all this out, of course, because your gut is already telling you right there, while she's doing it.

Detectives trust their instincts. So do mothers. Why shouldn't I? Some people call that God speaking to them. Other people (like the authors mentioned above) would call it an evolutionarily stable genetic trait. I say they're both the same.

If I get an uncomfortable feeling about a situation, I don't need to
care why I'm uncomfortable, I just need to know it and respond to it. If I don't trust you, it's your loss. Don't waste my time asking me to explain why.

Labels: philosophy, science

Miami at Houston
An 0-4 team doesn't come into a 2-2 team's stadium and win. They still have some work to do, but the Texans are a new team this year.

Jacksonville at Kansas City
The Jags are coming off of a bye while the Chiefs are coming off of a big win over the Chargers. Gotta go with the Kansas City defending home turf.

Cleveland at New England
You never pick against an undefeated team playing at home. Patriots, no contest.

Carolina at New Orleans
An odd, divisional matchup between talented underachievers. With two more wins than the Saints, I've got to pick the visiting Panthers to win.

New York at New York
Seriously... how do you pick which team is the visitor and which is the home team? The Meadowlands is home field for both of these teams, so there's no advantage. But the Giants have the better team.

Seattle at Pittsburgh
After four weeks of football, these two teams are tied with 3-1 records, both having creamed San Francisco and both suffering their only loss in Arizona. This week's rematch of Super Bowl XL will be missing Jerome Bettis, and I think the Seahawks have a chip on their shoulders, so they might pull off the win. Still, I have to go with the home team and pick the Steelers to win.

Arizona at St. Louis
Having beaten both the Seahawks and the Steelers, I think this Arizona team should easily handle the winless Rams. And with a tough game ahead for Seattle, the Cardinals could actually have first place in their division! I'll bet you never thought you'd read that.

Detroit at Washington
Detroit is 3-1 and coming off of a monstrous performance against the Bears, while Washington is 2-1 and coming off of a bye week, following a really ugly loss to the Giants. Kitna guaranteed 10 wins, and I don't see why the Lions can't get number 4 this week.

Atlanta at Tennessee
After last week's performance, I expect Harrington to get the start this week. Unfortunately, Harrington can't beat Tennessee. Only Leftwich stands a chance, but honestly I think Tennessee will win behind Vince Young regardless of who passes for Atlanta.

Tampa Bay at Indianapolis
I am really tempted to say Tampa Bay's revamped defense might shut down Manning. Indy's defense is suspect, as we've seen in the past few weeks, and their wins have been closer than one expects from Manning. Jeff Garcia has put new spunk and life into the Buccaneers, my surprise pick this week.

San Diego at Denver
Last year, I wouldn't have thought twice about picking the Chargers to crush Denver. But this year is different, and I think the Broncos will defend their home turf.

Baltimore at San Francisco
Unlike earlier, here we have a matchup of 2-2 teams, both of whom have beaten Arizona. I expect both the Ravens and the 49ers to finish near the bottom this year. With tied records, I have to pick the home team. 49ers to beat the Ravens.

Chicago at Green Bay
Chicago is a joke, and Favre is on fire. The Packers aren't as good as their record, but in this division they don't need to be. They've got Favre, and they've got all year to gel, which they seem to be doing just fine. Easy win for the Packers.

Dallas at Buffalo
Dallas is going to crush the Bills worse than Britney Spears in a custody hearing, and the Cowboys roll on to 5-0.

Labels: football, sports

“We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another.” -Jonathan Swift

Labels: qotd, religion

I don't know how this has been around for so long and I never saw it before. This is premium fodder for my crusade against fundamentalism.

Apparently, Dr. Laura — who, by the way, is not an actual doctor nor is she qualified to speak on issues of morality or spirituality — spouted off at the mouth about homosexuality, using the classic Leviticus 18:22 argument. This open letter to Dr. Laura was published online shortly thereafter, pointing out in humorous fashion the flaws in her reasoning.

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Lev. 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,
Jim

This is great. Most Christians have no problem with a biblical law allowing them to avoid a woman on her menstrual period, nor do they have a problem with a religious excuse for having Sundays off. But how willing would they be to put someone to death for working on the Sabbath?

Every Christian I know would immediately spout off about Satanism if they saw a bull burning on an altar as a sacrifice. They would never own slaves nor sell their own daughter into slavery. They certainly would see no sin in eating shellfish... or pork. And all of them trim the hair around their temples and shave their beards.

This exposes the principle flaw in using the Bible as a justification for your own bigotry. As Ann Lamott said, “You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do.” (Quote of the day, 4/19/06)

I would be willing to bet that any statement, regardless of how absurd, could be defended by selectively quoting a verse from the Bible. Care to try me? We can make a game of it. Give me a ridiculous opinion, and I'll find you a verse to support it.

Labels: common sense, fun, humor, philosophy, religion

I saw a clip on CNN while I was at lunch yesterday saying that President Dubya had vetoed a bill that would have given healthcare to 10 million poor children in America.

I really want to believe that there's more to it. I want to believe that there was some pork in the bill that Bush was trying to prevent. I always doubt that anything is as cut-and-dried hateful as the media makes it out to be, so I can't really imagine that he's just some evil tryant who want to prevent poor kids from going to the hospital.

But then I read this:

Bush stated that “this legislation would move health care in this country in the wrong direction. Under this bill government coverage would displace private health insurance for many children.”

And it really was that clear to me. This douche-bag has spent his entire presidency looking out for the best interest of the healthcare industry (in his free time, when he wasn't busy making new terrorist enemies) at the cost of actual health care for real people. He's been fighting to protect the bottom line for a big industry rather than looking out for the good of the American people. And this is no different.

This bill was not vetoed because it was bad for Americans... it was vetoed because it might encourage some of the affected families to take the free government healthcare instead of paying for the overpriced insurance plans they have now. In other words, it would have actually been good for Americans, but at a cost to the evil corporate empire.

Not on his watch. No way.

Labels: corporate evil, health, life, philosophy, politics

I've been hearing a lot of criticism of AT&T lately.

$10 DSL
I heard the host of a radio program last Friday, talking about a deal that AT&T made with the FCC in order to get the okay on it's BellSouth merger. One of the concessions is they have offer $10 DSL service.

The caller on the radio program related his experiences of calling the AT&T customer service line to get signed up for the program, whose rather strict criteria he meets. Every time he calls, however, he gets the runaround. The customer service representatives don't seem to know of any such deal. The radio host insisted that AT&T is screwing with him and gave him a number for a federal bureau that investigates complaints of poor customer service.

DSL Trial Period
Later that evening, without any mention of AT&T, my brother begins to tell me the story of his debacle with the company.

His home phone service was provided by AT&T, as was his cable television. AT&T was also the provider for high-volume commercial phone and internet service at his place of business. When they ran a promotion late last year for a low-cost trial period with their DSL service, he decided to try that too.

For the duration of the trial period, the DSL never worked. He called periodically asking to have it canceled, but his complaints and request to cancel were me with argument from the customer service, insisting that it they could do some troubleshooting on their end and get it going. Their stonewalling tactic held him all the way through the end of the trial period, after which the service still did not work, but now they would happily disconnect him with no argument, if he pays the early-termination fee for the contract he is now implicitly locked into.

Worse, the early-termination fee is greater than the total that would be paid by simply paying by the terms of the contract to its completion. With this knowledge, he offered to simply pre-pay the entire amount of the contract, to completion, in exchange for having the service immediately disconnected, but they refused this.

In response to this horrible customer service, he has canceled his home phone service, changed cable tv providers, and moved his company's voice and data services to a different provider. And now, my brother calls AT&T customer service every two weeks, just making sure to get someone on the line to guarantee him that, upon completion of the contract period, he can cancel his service without paying an early-termination fee.

New Terms of Service
The following morning, I saw a story on Boing Boing about new changes AT&T made to their terms of service, giving the company the right to terminate your connection for conduct that “tends to damage the name or reputation of AT&T, or its parents, affiliates and subsidiaries.” I suppose it's a good thing I'm not an AT&T internet customer, or else I might end up losing my service for writing this!

News of the TOS changes stirred up a lot of unhappy responses. Several web sites that complained about the change were contacted by AT&T, and informed that while the TOS allows them to do it, they won't be cutting the users off for vocalizing complaints. AT&T explains that the new terms are for people who look at child porn or advocate race violence. Sure.

What It Means To Me
While I'm not an AT&T internet customer, I do have AT&T cellular service, thanks to their merger with Cingular. And to be frank about it, I hate my service. I used to like it, but since the merger, the service has been awful. Apparently former AT&T subscribers feel the same way.

This is, ironically, how I ended up with Cingular cell service. I was a Sprint customer, and while I loved Sprint's service, they never had any of the new, cool phones. When they merged with Nextel, their service got worse, and I switched to Cingular. Now, I find myself in the same situation and once again ready to switch.

My contract ends in a few months, and the only thing AT&T has left to make me want to remain a customer is that they are the exclusive provider of service for Apple's iPhone. However, considering the release of the new iPod Touch, which is essentially, an iPhone without the phone, I can get everything but the phone features and never have to lock into a deal with any provider to make it work. Or, alternatively, I could try to get a hold of the iPhone SIM unlock hack that allows your iPhone to work with any SIM-based wireless provider, sacrificing only the interactive voicemail provided by AT&T.

Based on the way AT&T is running things, I think I'll be better served by just getting an iPod Touch, while moving my phone service to Verizon, which seems to be the favorite now for value as well as service.

Incidentally, if you want to get out of a cellular contract, take a look at Celltrade, a service that helps you transfer your contract responsibility to
someone else and walk away without the hefty penalty.

Labels: common sense, corporate evil, fun, health, humor, life, philosophy, politics, rant, religion

“Google's new 411 service is free, fast and easy to use.” That's what it says on the home page for GOOG-411, a Google-powered business directory designed to look up phone numbers using speach recognition.

Paul Boutin doesn't seem to think it's so fast or easy, though. He spent half an hour speed dialing GOOG-411 and trying various searches.

The verdict: Fail. At least until I can interrupt the redundant intro blurbs by immediately speaking a city and business name. Those seconds count, especially while driving.

I decided to give it a try for myself. After all, it's free, right?

The prerecorded voice didn't bother me the first time. In fact it all seemed rather efficient. But the strange thing is that when I called back a second time, the voice irritated me. I find myself agreeing with Boutin's assessment.

A simple interface — the very brand of Google — is what their 411 service seems to be missing. Sure, the underlying technology is great. But perfection of design is found not when there's nothing left to add, but when there's nothing left to take away.

As a side note, on one of my calls to GOOG-411, I tried asking for Spanish language support. The speech recognition didn't understand my first two attempts, and on the third try it wanted to connect me to El Paso, TX. I'm going to assume that Google isn't supporting other languages at this time.