I love sports interviews

June 30, 2008 under curios

From the BBC website

Fernando Torres Screenshot

I’m surprised it’s not because they “scored more goals than their opponents in every match”.

Tongue out of cheek, “the best football” is a meaningful piece of jargon which refers to the aesthetic quality of the game and not necessarily brute efficiency at putting the ball in the net.

Also significant is the word “deserved”. The headline is a quasi-religious statement; deservedness is akin to moral righteousness. Football struggles (just like any other sport) in a constant battle of trying to protect the game from negative (but effective) defensive strategies. It’s refreshing to see the right team win.

Thank you, Fernando.

comments: 0 » tags: ,

Destroying Value

June 19, 2008 under Uncategorized

Here’s a simple way to destroy a million dollars. As a bonus, it also has to do with baseball.

No, I’m not talking about waltzing into a museum with a baseball bat and taking care of some ancient pottery (although that’s fun too).

Take a sack and fill it with 99 new baseballs, all of the same manufacture.

Take a million dollar baseball and drop it into the sack. (If you’re having difficulty with the concept of a million dollar baseball, a good example is the baseball that Barry Bonds hit for his record breaking 73rd home run of the season.)

Shake the sack vigorously; swing it around. (Visit a museum, if you like ;-)

You now have 100 baseballs, each identical, each of which *could be* the million dollar ball. Each ball *could be* but almost certainly isn’t.

There’s no way to reclaim the million dollar baseball.
You might have some luck trying to sell the sack (“This sack contains a million dollar baseball, I’ll sell it to you for $1,000,202 ($1,000,000 + $1.99 * 99 + $4.99)” ) but that’s a mighty tough sell. If you really want to destroy the value of the million dollar ball, disperse the baseballs.

The million dollar value attached to a million dollar baseball is fragile; the only difference between a million dollar baseball and a regular one is that the million dollar baseball participated in an historic event.

The answer to this problem (if you happen to own just such an historic baseball) is to get it signed by the slugger who slugged it just as soon as possible. Any way of differentiating it will suffice, even if it just amounts to keeping it well away from ordinary baseballs.

This kind of fragile value isn’t just limited to baseballs; it also occurs with diamonds.

Wrigley field and Skydome do have considerable property value, but I’m talking about rocks.

The value of a diamond is that it is (so they tell us), forever.

But what about a manufactured rock that happens to be identical, right down to the atomic level? Is that forever, too?

Diamonds are valuable because:

  1. They’re shiny
  2. They’re expensive
  3. We believe that they’re valuable

Out of these reasons, I must say that #1 is the least important. Lots of things are shiny. Ignore #2 at your peril; there are a great many things which derive their value from their price-tag. As difficult as it is for me to swallow, sometimes people buy things just because they’re expensive. #3 is, of course, the most important justification of all.

Diamonds are quite shiny, but they’re not particularly rare. I doubt that they will become extremely cheap, however, because any diamond merchant (synthetic or mined) has absolutely nothing to gain from devaluing their merchandise.

Of course, in our global marketplace, it doesn’t take very many rogue merchants who don’t realize this to take down the market.

In the end, it doesn’t really matter.

If I propose to a girl with a ring and rock the size a grapefruit, it doesn’t matter how perfect the atomic structure of the crystal is. It doesn’t matter how shiny it is. It doesn’t matter whether it was mined or manufactured. Why not?

Because the instant I tell her that I bought it for $10 on E-Bay, she’s going to slap me.

If diamonds ever stop satisfying criteria #2 and #3, we’ll find something else worthless to value.

comments: 0 » tags: ,

Elevator Doors

June 17, 2008 under curios

… Are a great example of security defeating itself.

Elevator doors have a fantastic security feature: they are equipped with sensors that cause them to retract if something is blocking them. Elevator doors that cut people in half when they closed would not be a good thing.

So how is this self defeating? I take the elevator daily, and the behaviour I witness is revelationary.

People stick their arms and legs into the closing doors.

Intentionally. It’s really incredible.

“Hmm… here’s this door which, if it traps my arm, will break it when the elevator tries to go up (or down) a floor.  I’ll stick my arm into it“.

Yes, I know that the door is closing and that someone wants to get on (or off). Yes, I know that it’s difficult to set the timing on an elevator door so that it doesn’t annoy the impatient people but still allows for large groups to enter/exit.

I also know that there are buttons for these things. Sure, people have lost faith in elevator open/close buttons (are they even hooked up?), but still….

Security is hard, and it’s hard precisely because security and convenience are sworn enemies. The instant any security feature is inconvenient in any way, users will go to unheard of lengths to ignore it, subvert it, or destroy it.

comments: 2 » tags: ,

Jibber-jabba foo

June 17, 2008 under technical

From the docs…

public interface EntityManager

Interface used to interact with the persistence context. An EntityManager instance is associated with a persistence context. A persistence context is a set of entity instances in which for any persistent entity identity there is a unique entity instance. Within the persistence context, the entity instances and their lifecycle are managed. This interface defines the methods that are used to interact with the persistence context.

I don’t know what is scarier: the jargon, or the fact that after you work with it a while, the jargon starts to make sense.

Generally the problem with jargon is that the same concepts can be explained in a simpler fashion; the jargon is overcomplicated and obstructive.

The scary thing about this bit of jargon is that it is not overcomplicated; just straight up complicated. The subjects under discussion genuinely are that abstract. There are no simpler terms to use.

It really really bothers me that the most accurate term for something could actually be, “persistence context”.

comments: 0 »

Did someone say, “Detroit in 6″?

June 5, 2008 under Uncategorized, tongueincheek

Yes, readers. There’s a reason you keep coming back here.

It’s because you heard it here first.

Can’t or Won’t?

June 3, 2008 under curios, technical

This is an interesting story.

Well, I admit that I don’t find gardens particularly interesting. It does tickle my fancy, however, that a story about elevated gardens is actually about low-hanging fruit.

The story is a valuable reminder that there are a great many things which we won’t do or simply don’t do; great ideas left unimplemented because we’re too lazy, too busy, too comfortable or too ignorant to implement them.

Of course, sometimes we’re just being efficient: picking only low-hanging fruit until circumstances force us to strive somewhat harder.

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” may save us from the pain of unnecessary change, but it binds us to the pain of living in inferiority.

comments: 0 » tags:

Facebook vs. Canadian Privacy Law

June 1, 2008 under metablogging

A quick browse of my tag cloud reveals that I seem to care about privacy online.

Most of my griping is centered around Facebook. I don’t have anything against Facebook in particular, it’s simply a glaring example of where privacy (or lack thereof) and the internet collide.

But frankly, I wouldn’t be too surprised if Facebook failed to comply with Canadian privacy law.

Gee, look at (some of) the allegations in the complaint  to the Privacy Commissioner:

  • Not identifying what the private information collection is used for
  • Not getting informed consent for the uses
  • Not letting people use the services without supplying unnecessary information
  • Not allowing withdrawal of consent to share information
  • Not limiting the collection to what is necessary
  • Not destroying information
  • Not explaining policies
  • Not safeguarding information

To some extent this is silliness, because the reason people use Facebook is to broadcast their personal information. Facebook isn’t about being private, it’s about being public.

To a greater extent this is not silliness, because the reason Facebook accepts users is to serve them targeted advertisements.

Facebook doesn’t care if people ruin their (often future) lives through indiscretion. Facebook doesn’t care if people get fired, offend their friends or become targets for spammers and fraudsters. There’s a large discrepancy between why Facebook exists and why people think Facebook exists.

People might benefit from a controlled way of publishing private information online to a limited audience. This is a very difficult thing (I might call it an outright contradiction), and a good solution probably doesn’t include giving access to all of the data to a single party.

Particularly not when the single party is a hotshot startup company which is desperately trying to come up with a viable way of making lots of money off its users.

comments: 0 » tags: ,