Rants – Page 33 – a sibilant intake of breath

Insight into Google

For someone who produces a site which covers a broad variety of topics, Google is an especially critical source of traffic (because people interested in one topic are unlikely to follow a site with a bunch of other random topics included). In my case, more than 60% of the traffic I received in the last year came as the result of Google searches. No other search engine produces more than 3.5%, and only 12% of visitors actually type in the URL, rather than clicking a link from a page of search results or another site.

Given the importance of Google, it is worth knowing a bit about how the organization operates. Over at All Things Digital, there are three interesting articles. The first covers the human evaluators Google uses to evaluate the effectiveness of their various search algoriths. The second discusses the attempts people make to game the system (inevitable, given the sheer amount of money that can be gained or lost by rising or falling in Google rankings). The third describes how Google intends to improve future search results.

One interesting fact mentioned in the first piece is that the option Google offers for users to hide results in their searches is used to refine their search algorithms. For instance, I am personally annoyed by websites that try to scrape together an identity page on someone, by grabbing snippets from here and there that seem related to them. Sites that do this include pipl.com, 123people.co.uk, zoominfo.com, and others. It is a bit encouraging that if enough people hide their unsolicited and error-prone amalgamations, their overall page rankings may eventually suffer.

Palin’s content-free opposition to carbon pricing

Sarah Palin, former governor of Alaska, has produced an op-ed for The Washington Post attacking the Waxman-Markey bill, and the idea of using cap and trade to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. She argues:

It will prevent economic recovery.
It will make energy too expensive.
Job losses will result.
Costs of agriculture, transport, and manufacturing will rise.
Drilling in Alaska and building pipelines is a better option.
The US has lots of coal, and could build a lot more nukes.

Notably, she doesn’t even pretend to offer a solution to climate change, the primary problem the Waxman-Markey bill aims to address. This is remarkably myopic. Even if we accept that all of her assertions are true, this op-ed brings us no closer to making an intelligent decision on climate change and energy policies, since it doesn’t really contemplate alternative mechanisms through which climate can be stabilized and dependence on non-renewable fuels can be overcome. To imply that the US can get by with a bit more drilling is deeply fallacious. Similarly, it is misleading and dangerous to suggest that the American economy would keep ticking happily along indefinitely, even if climate change was totally unrestrained and allowed to follow its most destructive course.

We can only hope that the US Senate will be a bit more far-seeing in its analysis and deliberations, more willing to consider the key motivations for energy policy, and ultimately seized of the importance of sending a strong and growing price signal, so as to progressively and deeply curb the release of harmful and threatening greenhouse gasses.

Don’t bring cameras to concerts, bring binoculars

Going to see Neko Case and Ani DiFranco at Bluesfest reminded me how, these days, 1/3 of the audience will be trying to capture everything on their cell phone cameras, while another 1/3 will be trying to do so with low-cost digital SLRs and cheap zoom lenses. It is only fair to point out that neither will produce photos of remotely comparable quality to concert images of the artist you could find using Google or Wikipedia in a couple of minutes.

Say you want to engage with the experience using hardware that will produce output of good optical quality. There are at least two routes open to you:

1) Still camera:

Buy a crazy lens. Two options to consider are the Canon EF 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM (US$1,575) and the Canon EF 600mm f/4L IS USM (US$$7,650).
Buy a good quality filter to protect the expensive front element ($60-80).
Buy a camera body that produces good images at high ISO. An excellent option would be the Canon 5D Mark II (US$3,900).
Attach your 1.4kg lens to your 820g body.
Get both past security people wary of commercial photographers.
Worry a lot about the $5,000 to $10,000 worth of gear around your neck, as well as spinal damage from the 2kg weight.
Get fairly close to the stage, and spend the concert concerned about AE correction for changing backdrops, flare from stage lights, etc. Worry also about the limited dynamic range of your digital sensor, white balance issues, and the fact that most photos of people singing come out looking awkward.

In short, unless you are being paid to document the concert, or happen to already own the appropriate gear, this isn’t a terribly appealing option.

2) Binoculars:

Buy some moderately priced binoculars. Good options include Bushnell 8×25 Binoculars (C$50) or, even better, Pentax 8×21 UCF-R Mini Binoculars (C$58).
Carry your 200g binoculars through security.
Find a spot about a bus-length from the performer.
Enjoy watching them in high resolution, full frame, full motion video.
Note, also, that they will be in three dimensions, with an even more flattering depth of field effect than the monocular version offered by the best zoom lenses.

For less than the cost of a filter to protect a crazy lens, you can buy an optical instrument that can contribute more to engagement and enjoyment than the whole photo setup. Concert lighting is set up to look good to human eyes (the relevant sensor when using binoculars), not digital sensors (the ultimate target of photos flying through your expensive photo rig). Wearing your crazy photo rig, you will feel like part of the paparazzi. With good binoculars, you will feel like a falcon.

While you will probably never be able to take a better photo of a performer than you can readily find online, you can quite easily watch them with your own wonderful eyes at a much higher quality level.

P.S. Neko Case is a very strong live performer. Her on-stage renditions of songs are remarkably similar to her studio albums. I found that Ani DiFranco is really amazing on stage, even though I am less familiar with her music. She has wonderful spirit, lots of technical skill, and a notable ability to engage with the crowd.

G8 insufficiently wary of climate change

Writing in The Toronto Star Christopher Hume has produced a short but trenchant criticism of this government’s position on climate change: Political expediency trumps fate of planet.

As Hume explains:

In the face of overwhelming evidence that global warming is happening, and faster than the most pessimistic climatologists had expected, how can such extraordinary stupidity be justified?

Inaction of this sort goes well beyond ordinary human idiocy; it represents a collective rush to self-destruction on an unprecedented scale. And through it all, our leaders smile and assure us they won’t let our standard of living be threatened.

The G8 leaders would do well to read Jared Diamond’s work on civilizational collapse, so as to better understand the extent to which civilizational success depends absolutely on maintaining agricultural productivity, which in turn depends on avoiding massive environmental degradation and responding intelligently to the problems that arise.

As I have pointed out before, it is a false to suggest that we can continue to enjoy economic and social prosperity without dealing with the problem of climate change. Runaway climate change could literally kill everyone, and even increases of as little as 2°C “stands a strong chance of provoking drought and storm responses that could challenge civilized society” according to the scientists at RealClimate.

This government needs to realize that climate change isn’t some minor political issue to be managed, but rather a major civilizational challenge for humanity. So far, Canada has influenced this process primarily be serving as an anchor, holding back those with greater vision and determination.

The credit crunch and Canada’s national debt

Canada’s Parliamentary Budget Office recently projected that Canada will remain in deficit until 2014, with a total deficit of $156 billion to be accumulated. Those are figures that should be worrisome to everyone, even if you accept the argument that the consequences of being more fiscally prudent would have been even worse, because they would have caused a deep recession and exploding unemployment.

What seems most regrettable to me about this is that we have basically failed to use the opportunity to make necessary investments in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In exchange for the support given to carmakers, for instance, we could have demanded a lot more movement on efficiency and the deployment of hybrid and electric vehicles. More of our infrastructure spending could have been directed at the energy sources of the future (renewables) and less at perpetuating activities that climate change and dwindling fossil fuels have rendered unsustainable. We need to realize that many aspects of how we now live simply need to change – particularly dependence on fossil fuels for both wealth and our energy needs.

Canada has too many future liabilities to be unconcerned about our degraded financial position. Inevitably, the money we are borrowing is going to need to be paid back with interest and, when we are not using it to invest in productive future assets and capabilities, the cost of that will inevitably be borne in future service cuts and tax rises. As a general pattern, it is awfully frustrating how Conservatives everywhere like to cut taxes without decreasing spending, wreck the financial balance of countries, lose power, and then leave it to the next government to repair. They can then win power again and restart the cycle.

The Globe and Mail has more on the announcement.

Weak-willed non-proliferation

Stephanie Cooke’s book In Mortal Hands: A Cautionary History of the Nuclear Age make some interesting points about the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Among them, that short-term political and commercial calculations have often overridden concerns about providing dangerous technologies to states that might aspire to developing weapons. In many cases, the examples are not hypothetical; for instance, there was Canadian and American assistance in building the CIRUS reactor that fueled India’s first atomic bombs, and America apparently played an important role in encouraging uranium mining in North Korea.

Lest people think that such shenanigans are a matter for history only, Cooke suggests that up until very recently, India faced a squeeze between being able to use uranium for plutonium production and bomb manufacture, and decided to put bombs above energy needs. The recent American decision to provide fuel to India, despite their weapons tests and rejection of safeguards against future weapons production, seems to show that we are still living in a world where civilian nuclear energy can be effectively used as a cover to advance military programs.

[Update: 8 July 2009] One correction to the above, it was apparently the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that helped North Korea develop its uranium mining program, not the United States as I indicated above. Cooke’s book does a good job of explaining how the dual role of the IAEA as both a promoter of nuclear technology and an enforcer of safeguards reduces how effectively it plays the latter role.

Copyright and authorship

Over at Techdirt, there is a good post about copyright and historical conceptions of authorship. The main argument is that all works are derived from other, prior examples (including the copyright laws states create and enforce) and that the notion of an author as a singular creator of an isolated work is a recent and oftentimes flawed one:

It’s nice to see more and more people recognizing and speaking out about these things. The idea that there is a single “author” or “creator” who deserves to get money any time anyone else builds upon his or her works is something that should be seen as increasingly ridiculous as people recognize that all works are created based on the works of others, and it’s inherently silly to try to charge everyone to pay back each and every one of their influences in creating a new work.

There does seem to be good reason for hoping that our present copyright system proves to be an exception that eventually gets corrected. The aim of the whole thing is to encourage creativity, by letting individuals use the might of the state to enforce exclusive claims to there work. There is nothing libertarian about this concept, unless the only kind of liberty you care about is the right to private property and the existence of a state that will defend that claim against others. There is also a growing doubt about whether the aim of encouraging creativity is succeeding. Does it really benefit the public at large to forbid non-Apple companies from using ‘multitouch’ without paying royalties? The bar above with work deserves exclusivity protection from the state ought to be raised.

The sociology of avoiding travel, due to climate change

Adopting a personal ethical position where you don’t fly or otherwise travel long distances because of climate change is rather problematic: it has no upside, and a lot of downside. There is no upside because nobody is willing to copy you. Even people who agree that the science on climate change is compelling, that our emissions harm future generations, and that this creates moral obligations are unwilling to give up the opportunity to travel to interesting distant places, as well as visit friends and family members in far-flung locales (like the other side of this massive country). Tony Blair won’t give up his holidays in Barbados, and people with family, work, and school split between different regions won’t give up the option to cycle between them regularly.

The downside associated with making this kind of personal example is clear, and goes beyond sacrificing new experiences, family, and friends. Once you have taken the stance, any abandonment will be perceived by a lot of people as proof that environmentalists are hypocrites, that obligations to avoid highly-emitting activities are weak, etc. While the example of being abstinent isn’t forceful enough to make others equally scrupulous, the counter-example of lapses from abstinence provides rich material to rationalize morally dubious actions.

All this is true regardless of the strength of weakness of the key moral arguments that would underpin such a personal position. They are just undesirable secondary sociological characteristics.

Getting serious about climate change

The key thing that is required for dealing with climate change, and which our society does not yet possess, is seriousness. Seriousness of the kind that accompanied winning the Second World War – far more seriousness than we are displaying now in Afghanistan. We can afford to effectively lose that war, watching control pass back to the Taliban, but we cannot afford the consequences that would arise from decades of additional unmitigated emissions.

The threat certainly justifies an effort on the scale of winning a world war. The business-as-usual outcome of more than 5°C of temperature increase would cause enormous disruption. It is quite probable that it would disrupt global agriculture to such an extent that the global population would drop significantly, amid a lot of bloodshed and suffering. Preventing that requires replacing the energy inputs that run everything with carbon neutral ones: a process that will cost trillions and probably require converting areas the size of states into renewable power facilities.

Where could the necessary seriousness come from? The scientists have already given us a vivid and well-justified picture of what continuing on our present course will do. Some political parties and entities have accepted the direction in which we need to travel, though they don’t really understand how far we need to go along that road, or how quickly we need to begin. In the worst case, seriousness will come with the first concrete demonstration that climate change is a major threat to civilization. By then, however, even action on the largest scale and with the utmost urgency would probably be more of a salvage effort than a save.

Something needs to prompt us, as a global society, to take action on an environmental issue at a scale and a cost never previously borne. Rational scientific and economic analyses are already urging that, but don’t seem to have the psychological motive power to make people stop dallying. Finding something to provide the needed push into serious thinking must be a major task for the environmental movement.

Lack of vision in the Australian senate

Australia may be the rich state with the most to lose from climate change, in the near- and medium-term. Almost all of the country is already either unsuitable or marginal for agriculture. They have major problems with erosion, invasive species, drought, and salinization. They are also one of the rich countries closest to low-lying poorer states, where climate change could induce a surge of migration.

Nonetheless, the Australian Senate seems likely to defeat the Rudd government’s attempt to introduce a carbon trading scheme. The principle grounds of opposition seems to be an unwillingness to act before others do. This is in spite of the fact that the plan calls for emissions-intensive and trade-exposed industries like steel and aluminum production to be given 95% of their permits for free. Barnaby Joyce, the leader of Australia’s National Party, has expressed his desire to delay climate change regulation for as long as possible, probably in ignorance of the fact that all states behaving likewise would threaten the long-term viability of Australia as a self-sustaining society.

This suicide pact mentality is especially inappropriate coming from a state as vulnerable as Australia, which could become almost entirely agriculturally non-viable with a multi-degree increase in mean temperatures. If anybody should be willing to step out a bit ahead of the pack, it should be a highly rich and highly vulnerable state, with excellent renewable energy opportunities. The fact that even politicians in this drought-stricken state don’t have the foresight to embrace carbon pricing speaks ill of the intelligence of politicians, as well as raises doubts about whether any society is going to be able to act effectively in time to avoid catastrophic climate change.