I've just completed a novel titled No Tomorrow featuring an out of work computer scientist who is trying to make the ultimate truth about climate change documentary.
The novel was inspired by the poor job Martin Durkin did of The Great Global Warming Swindle which was meant to debunk conventional climate change science, but was easily picked apart by scientists. What if the case was weak as the “sceptics” claim but no one was presenting their side clearly? Doing that properly would be a good documentary.
The trouble is, this is a fast-moving area. The politics is moving rapidly. Al Gore and the IPPC were awarded a Nobel. Climate change has moved to centre-stage in the Australian federal election called for 24 November 2007.
So rather than make the documentary, I wrote a novel about someone trying to make one. I had to do a fair fraction of the research that would have had to go into the documentary, but saved on all the travel time (and cost).
I had to make up people and their lives, but that was fun. I have no way of knowing if the real scientists on both sides of the debate would have behaved as I had them in the book. But that's fiction for you. At least I did make a good attempt at understanding the science which is more than moth fiction authors (aka journalists) bother with.
The novel is set in places I've lived in or visited: Brisbane, Boston, New York, Sydney, Sunshine Coast (near Brisbane), Berkeley, San Francisco and Stanford. It includes a nice slice of human interest so the science will not be too boring for the uninitiated. I also include a few slugs of real hard-core computer science since usually this stuff is watered down or just plain wrong.
Check out the novel's google groups site for more.
Tuesday, 30 October 2007
Thursday, 18 October 2007
Third-Party Apps on iPhone
It's nice that Apple has conceded the need to allow other developers to build apps for iPhone.
It's also nice that they have conceded that they have delivered a platform full of security holes -- and that they plan on fixing this.
The most obvious security hole is a gaping opening: everything runs as root (system administrator). That had to he a quick and dirty fix -- exactly the sort of thing that leads to long-term trouble. You would have thought that Apple would have learnt the hard lesson of the past: make a system as secure as it's ever likely to need to be from the start, not as secure as you think you can get away with now.
The really huge thing though that this development opens up not only for the iPhone but the iPod Touch (and one presumes future iPods which should be build on the same platform) is turning it into an alternative computing platform. This opens up really interesting possibilities, like a decent voice over IP implementation. Aside from what this may do to whatever deal Apple made with Cisco to avoid confusion over the Linksys iPhone, this would be a very attractive addition for iPhone users roaming in parts of the world where cell phone service is very expensive. The option to control whether you connect through WiFi or the cell network for data traffic would be useful here as well.
If Apple fixes the security problems (which I hope is not too hard an ask, given that the list of existing applications is small, and most are based on apps that run in a more protected environment on other platforms), this is a really big development. Many, many more people should be interested in an iPhone if it can run apps of interest. This puts it much more into the camp of smart phones running a real operating system, like a variant of Linux or Windows.
It's also nice that they have conceded that they have delivered a platform full of security holes -- and that they plan on fixing this.
The most obvious security hole is a gaping opening: everything runs as root (system administrator). That had to he a quick and dirty fix -- exactly the sort of thing that leads to long-term trouble. You would have thought that Apple would have learnt the hard lesson of the past: make a system as secure as it's ever likely to need to be from the start, not as secure as you think you can get away with now.
The really huge thing though that this development opens up not only for the iPhone but the iPod Touch (and one presumes future iPods which should be build on the same platform) is turning it into an alternative computing platform. This opens up really interesting possibilities, like a decent voice over IP implementation. Aside from what this may do to whatever deal Apple made with Cisco to avoid confusion over the Linksys iPhone, this would be a very attractive addition for iPhone users roaming in parts of the world where cell phone service is very expensive. The option to control whether you connect through WiFi or the cell network for data traffic would be useful here as well.
If Apple fixes the security problems (which I hope is not too hard an ask, given that the list of existing applications is small, and most are based on apps that run in a more protected environment on other platforms), this is a really big development. Many, many more people should be interested in an iPhone if it can run apps of interest. This puts it much more into the camp of smart phones running a real operating system, like a variant of Linux or Windows.
Friday, 12 October 2007
South African Technology Career Options
Recently, I saw a story that one Llew Jones had been appointed head of the State IT Agency (SITA) in South Africa.
Llew Jones, as far as I know, is an engineer, with a background in the armaments industry, so why is he being appointed as head of a government agency in an area in which he has no background?
Then again, he was acting director of Meraka, an agency supposedly the leading ICT reseach body in the country for a while – and he was not particularly qualified for that either*.
Some may be rather puzzled at this point, as there is a broad perception in South Africa that Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) is the main driver of senior appointments to the government payroll – and white South Africans mainly get appointed to fill gaps in competence. So why him?
No big mystery. The ANC, absent serious opposition, has fallen into the comfort zone of favouring team players over competence – and this is not a strictly racial issue. Some of these "team players" are members of the old order. Troublemakers from the old days are not favoured. The government continues to favour the Afrikaans universities and the CSIR over the English universities as sources of advice, and Reserve Bank Governor Tito Mboweni notoriously said Afrikaners were much more reliable appointments than blacks. What he meant, of course, is that the old hands at the broederbond game know how to keep their heads down and work the system.
Expect this to continue until there are enough voters who don't have memories of the old system. In Zimbabwe, that took 20 years (unfortunately, Mugabe didn't want to let go – otherwise they would probably have had an MDC government by now; even if not totally competent it would certainly have been less of a disaster).
South Africa is about halfway through the post-liberation transition. The realization that the main liberation party doesn't hold all the answers may go a bit faster than in Zimbabwe because South Africa is a more diverse society with a longer tradition of a critical civil society, but the ANC can certainly expect to win at least the next election with a massive majority. That being the so, it's hard to put the case that there is something systemically wrong with the whole approach. Look what happened to the deputy health minister.
In my view the best thing South Africans with strong technical skills who want to contribute to the long-term development of the country can do now is to get some experience in government to learn the lie of the land then go to the private sector to develop their skills. To stick too long in the government sector risks burning yourself out with frustration. It's not as if all good in society flows from government activity. Business has some contribution, and SA does have some particularly good NGOs – despite my broad perception that "NGO" stands for "never gets organized".
So what am I doing outside South Africa?
I was a computer science academic at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) for around 20 years, up to mid-2002, and felt that I needed some international experience – not only because it was useful, but because there is a prejudice in small countries that foreign is better.
There is a long history at Wits of favouring "foreign experience" over locals. The first head of computer science had a Stanford PhD but hadn't published much and had no PhD completions. His Stanford PhD plus industrial experience was sufficient to make him a full professor and head of department. He eventually left because he realized he wasn't cut out to be an academic. We later acquired a Hungarian of lazy disposition with a PhD I think in mathematics. He lasted until we had an activist class who complained of his abject lack of preparation for any of his courses. Then we acquired a new head from Russia, whose background was not in computer science. Each time he was exposed as knowing nothing about an area in which he claimed expertise, he moved on to another. At various times, he was an authority on AI, graphics, parallel computing and smart cards. He had one PhD completion to his name when he started, and a fair number of publications but none in computer science. To my recollection, he only published one paper when he was with us. Eventually, he was forced to leave after he got involved with a startup while on sabbatical, and didn't want to do any lecturing on his return. Somewhere along the line, we also managed to acquire a Bulgarian and someone from the UK, neither of whom amounted to much acadamically. The last instalment of this type was an American who had significant industry experience in Germany and was appointed a full professor straight out of his PhD. Of this bunch, he was by far the most successful, and published some papers – but he was on a time-limited contract and didn't stay.
So: international experience, a PhD, limited publications, zero or possibly one PhD completion: this combination was viewed highly favourably at Wits. Three people were appointed as full professors with these credentials. So when Wits advertised for professor and head of computer science in February 2007, I applied. All I heard since was one email telling me I would be informed of progress (28 March 2007). This is kind of puzzling since I was previously appointable as an associate professor (this happened last time I applied for a vacant chair) and I now have not only the prized international experience but also a PhD completion and relevant experience. It seems I am still missing something important – or could it be that once you have gone up the slippery pole of promotion at Wits, you are judged to a much higher standard?
Whatever. But I do feel that having put 20 years into producing a large number of successful graduates, I have done my part. If the experience I have gained in the process is not valued in South Africa, others will value it. I wish those still in the system luck. They are going to need it.
* See another article in this blog on whether Meraka was a success. For the record, I applied to Meraka for a position, and was only made an offer (which I turned down) after Jones left; I spoke to him on a trip to South Africa, and he was not keen on having me on board, claiming my area of research was not a "national priority". That seems excessively picky when you don't have nearly enough skilled people on board to meet your goals.
Llew Jones, as far as I know, is an engineer, with a background in the armaments industry, so why is he being appointed as head of a government agency in an area in which he has no background?
Then again, he was acting director of Meraka, an agency supposedly the leading ICT reseach body in the country for a while – and he was not particularly qualified for that either*.
Some may be rather puzzled at this point, as there is a broad perception in South Africa that Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) is the main driver of senior appointments to the government payroll – and white South Africans mainly get appointed to fill gaps in competence. So why him?
No big mystery. The ANC, absent serious opposition, has fallen into the comfort zone of favouring team players over competence – and this is not a strictly racial issue. Some of these "team players" are members of the old order. Troublemakers from the old days are not favoured. The government continues to favour the Afrikaans universities and the CSIR over the English universities as sources of advice, and Reserve Bank Governor Tito Mboweni notoriously said Afrikaners were much more reliable appointments than blacks. What he meant, of course, is that the old hands at the broederbond game know how to keep their heads down and work the system.
Expect this to continue until there are enough voters who don't have memories of the old system. In Zimbabwe, that took 20 years (unfortunately, Mugabe didn't want to let go – otherwise they would probably have had an MDC government by now; even if not totally competent it would certainly have been less of a disaster).
South Africa is about halfway through the post-liberation transition. The realization that the main liberation party doesn't hold all the answers may go a bit faster than in Zimbabwe because South Africa is a more diverse society with a longer tradition of a critical civil society, but the ANC can certainly expect to win at least the next election with a massive majority. That being the so, it's hard to put the case that there is something systemically wrong with the whole approach. Look what happened to the deputy health minister.
In my view the best thing South Africans with strong technical skills who want to contribute to the long-term development of the country can do now is to get some experience in government to learn the lie of the land then go to the private sector to develop their skills. To stick too long in the government sector risks burning yourself out with frustration. It's not as if all good in society flows from government activity. Business has some contribution, and SA does have some particularly good NGOs – despite my broad perception that "NGO" stands for "never gets organized".
So what am I doing outside South Africa?
I was a computer science academic at the University of the Witwatersrand (Wits) for around 20 years, up to mid-2002, and felt that I needed some international experience – not only because it was useful, but because there is a prejudice in small countries that foreign is better.
There is a long history at Wits of favouring "foreign experience" over locals. The first head of computer science had a Stanford PhD but hadn't published much and had no PhD completions. His Stanford PhD plus industrial experience was sufficient to make him a full professor and head of department. He eventually left because he realized he wasn't cut out to be an academic. We later acquired a Hungarian of lazy disposition with a PhD I think in mathematics. He lasted until we had an activist class who complained of his abject lack of preparation for any of his courses. Then we acquired a new head from Russia, whose background was not in computer science. Each time he was exposed as knowing nothing about an area in which he claimed expertise, he moved on to another. At various times, he was an authority on AI, graphics, parallel computing and smart cards. He had one PhD completion to his name when he started, and a fair number of publications but none in computer science. To my recollection, he only published one paper when he was with us. Eventually, he was forced to leave after he got involved with a startup while on sabbatical, and didn't want to do any lecturing on his return. Somewhere along the line, we also managed to acquire a Bulgarian and someone from the UK, neither of whom amounted to much acadamically. The last instalment of this type was an American who had significant industry experience in Germany and was appointed a full professor straight out of his PhD. Of this bunch, he was by far the most successful, and published some papers – but he was on a time-limited contract and didn't stay.
So: international experience, a PhD, limited publications, zero or possibly one PhD completion: this combination was viewed highly favourably at Wits. Three people were appointed as full professors with these credentials. So when Wits advertised for professor and head of computer science in February 2007, I applied. All I heard since was one email telling me I would be informed of progress (28 March 2007). This is kind of puzzling since I was previously appointable as an associate professor (this happened last time I applied for a vacant chair) and I now have not only the prized international experience but also a PhD completion and relevant experience. It seems I am still missing something important – or could it be that once you have gone up the slippery pole of promotion at Wits, you are judged to a much higher standard?
Whatever. But I do feel that having put 20 years into producing a large number of successful graduates, I have done my part. If the experience I have gained in the process is not valued in South Africa, others will value it. I wish those still in the system luck. They are going to need it.
* See another article in this blog on whether Meraka was a success. For the record, I applied to Meraka for a position, and was only made an offer (which I turned down) after Jones left; I spoke to him on a trip to South Africa, and he was not keen on having me on board, claiming my area of research was not a "national priority". That seems excessively picky when you don't have nearly enough skilled people on board to meet your goals.
Monday, 20 August 2007
The iPhone battery lawsuit
Another day, another Apple battery lawsuit.
The whole thing is at http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/iphonelawsuit/ for those interested in the detail.
The substance of the allegations against Apple is:
First, the battery replacement policy is not great – most cell phone users who need a new battery would at worst expect to wait in a shop while it was replaced. Second, the cost is high.
However, the substance of the allegations doesn't stand up to detailed scrutiny. The "loss of data" is not as serious as it is made to sound. As Apple makes clear, you should back up your data before sending the phone in – not exactly the same thing as total, irrecoverable data loss, as the law suit would have you think.
Also, the number of charges is stated by Apple as follows:
Nowhere does Apple equate a "charge and discharge" cycle to about one day's use as the lawsuit attempts to claim. Let's for example take a day's use as:
Given Apple's claims of 8 hours' talk time, 6 of Internet, 7 of video playback, 24 hours of audio playbackand up to 250 hours of standby time, these numbers represent about 85% of a full charge on a good battery. You might do something like this if you were travelling (watch a moving on a plane, catch up on your email, listen to some music, do some long business calls).
What if you have a day at the office, and only use the phone for a few phone calls, and to listen to some music on public transport to and from home? The usage could look something like this:
On Apple's numbers this would use less than 20% of a full charge. So with this sort of usage, you could go almost a week between charges.
On these numbers, the phone would still be reasonably usable in a wide range of scenarios if Apple's 80% of capacity after 400 cycles is correct. With moderate usage – mostly phoning with occasional music in daily use; videos only while travelling – a full charge cycle every 4 days seems likely. This would mean the battery would still be reasonably useful after 1600 days – over 4 years.
My own low-end Nokia phone which is a couple of months shy of 4 years old has a battery which is holding about 50% of its original charge.
So unless Apple is lying about the battery specs – which is not claimed in the lawsuit – I can't see that the claim that the battery's life is inadequate by industry standards holds up.
Of course it is possible that Apple did not have all the information I found on their web site the day the phone was launched. However, I do recall discussion of the battery issue pretty early on and, as others have pointed out, the plaintiffs always had the option to return the phone if they didn't like it.
So, in summary – I don't like the battery policy but don't see the basis for the lawsuit. It looks to me like a fishing expedition.
The whole thing is at http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/iphonelawsuit/ for those interested in the detail.
The substance of the allegations against Apple is:
- an iPhone battery only lasts 300 charges, and this implies a battery must be replaced in less than 2 years
- only Apple can replace the battery because it is soldered in, and this imposes not only an unacceptable cost but unfair "enrichment" on Apple's part
- sending in the battery results in total data loss
First, the battery replacement policy is not great – most cell phone users who need a new battery would at worst expect to wait in a shop while it was replaced. Second, the cost is high.
However, the substance of the allegations doesn't stand up to detailed scrutiny. The "loss of data" is not as serious as it is made to sound. As Apple makes clear, you should back up your data before sending the phone in – not exactly the same thing as total, irrecoverable data loss, as the law suit would have you think.
Also, the number of charges is stated by Apple as follows:
A properly maintained iPhone battery is designed to retain up to 80% of its original capacity at 400 full charge and discharge cycles.
Nowhere does Apple equate a "charge and discharge" cycle to about one day's use as the lawsuit attempts to claim. Let's for example take a day's use as:
- 1 hour of music
- 2 hours of video
- 2 hours Internet
- 1 hour of talking
- 18 hours standby
Given Apple's claims of 8 hours' talk time, 6 of Internet, 7 of video playback, 24 hours of audio playbackand up to 250 hours of standby time, these numbers represent about 85% of a full charge on a good battery. You might do something like this if you were travelling (watch a moving on a plane, catch up on your email, listen to some music, do some long business calls).
What if you have a day at the office, and only use the phone for a few phone calls, and to listen to some music on public transport to and from home? The usage could look something like this:
- 1 hour of music
- no video
- no Internet
- half an hour of talking
- 22.5 hours standby
On Apple's numbers this would use less than 20% of a full charge. So with this sort of usage, you could go almost a week between charges.
On these numbers, the phone would still be reasonably usable in a wide range of scenarios if Apple's 80% of capacity after 400 cycles is correct. With moderate usage – mostly phoning with occasional music in daily use; videos only while travelling – a full charge cycle every 4 days seems likely. This would mean the battery would still be reasonably useful after 1600 days – over 4 years.
My own low-end Nokia phone which is a couple of months shy of 4 years old has a battery which is holding about 50% of its original charge.
So unless Apple is lying about the battery specs – which is not claimed in the lawsuit – I can't see that the claim that the battery's life is inadequate by industry standards holds up.
Of course it is possible that Apple did not have all the information I found on their web site the day the phone was launched. However, I do recall discussion of the battery issue pretty early on and, as others have pointed out, the plaintiffs always had the option to return the phone if they didn't like it.
So, in summary – I don't like the battery policy but don't see the basis for the lawsuit. It looks to me like a fishing expedition.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)