Voter Registration Modernization
During my campaign for Secretary of State, I proposed Automatic Voter Registration for Washington State.
Everyone would be registered to vote and your registration would follow you as you move. All done automatically.
Automatic registration is cheaper, more accurate, and more fair than our current opt-in system. It’d also simplify election administration by eliminating the need for provisional ballots.
I’m absolutely thrilled to note this issue is gaining support. A small sampling…
Each of these efforts is being done independently. People have acknowledged the problem, determined the correct solution, and are starting to organize.
Automatic voter registration is an idea who’s time has come.
Singularity Inevitability
Philosopher Massimo Pigliucci takes David Chalmers to task for having an illogical argument about the inevitability of the singularity. Pigluicci even accuses Chalmers of reading too much science fiction. (The horrors!)
The singularity is when computers are smarter than humans and take over. For better or worse. It’s a favorite topic for technophiles. Fruity utopians like Ray Kurweil and downer dystopians like Bill Joy.
I try not to think about the “singularity”. When I do, I’m more in Bill Joy’s camp. And I try to maintain a positive mental attitude.
But I know two things. The “singularity” is inevitable. We won’t recognize it when it happens.
My “logic” is different from Chalmers. Computing power, algorithms, and technology are irrelevant. The singularity is inevitable because people won’t stop trying to make a non-human intelligence until it happens.
It’s likely that we can only describe human intelligence in contrast to another form of intelligence. Alas, an “artificial” intelligence will likely be too weird, large, and complicated for us to understand. So we won’t see it for what it is.
Pigluicci can take his fancy logic and statistics and blow them out his, ah, ear. Just because we geeks don’t always have the words to accurately describe things doesn’t invalidate our intuitions and contributions.
Mental Illness
We will be judged by how to we treat the least among us.
The needs of the mentally ill is not discussed during the healthcare reform “debate”. These are the unfortunates, who cannot take care of themselves, that we’ve kicked to the curb,
beginning with Reagan.
The untreated mentally ill are a huge problem that our society has ignored. Here’s
just one example.
Miasma of Incandescent Plasma
They Might Be Giants is my new favorite band: Why Does the Sun Really Shine?
Reminds me of School House Rock. Ah, good times.
Is Technology Evil?
In the post Is Technology Evil?, Robert X. Cringely asks if the automated trading software used by Goldman Sachs is destroying the economy.
Wall Street traders invest in ever faster, smarter trading systems. There’s a lot of money to be made in being the first to respond to the ever changing market conditions.
My response has four points, followed by a startling conclusion.
Technology is amoral. Adopting technology is a tradeoff, we forfeit something in exchange for the innovation. The failure to consider consequences is where things often go wrong. (This is covered wonderfully in Neil Postman’s book Technolopy.)
The rewards of innovations are spread unevenly. Without progressive wealth redistribution, inequity accelerates. This is a basic mechanism of how the rich get richer. As we’ve seen in our economy since the 70s, even though productivity continues to increase, labor has not shared in the bounty.
Open markets are effective when it has a level playing field. Having the ability to conduct trades sooner and quicker gives those Wall Street firms an unfair advantage. As an analogy, imagine the old school trading floor where Goldman Sachs’ traders stood in front and were always called on first. The other traders would riot, for good reason.
Automated trading makes the markets more viotile. Automation is at least partially responsible for Black Monday in 1987. (Note, I know almost nothing about finance. But I know a lot about the inappropriate use and risks of automation.)
So in conclusion, creating ever faster trading systems is overall a pretty bad idea. It’s unfair. It causes havoc. No one fully understands what’s going on. (Maybe that’s a benefit for some traders.)
I’ll propose my fix in a future post.
Apple Responds to FCC
Google Voice is pretty cool. Google ported Voice to the iPhone. Apple has rejected continues to study the app. FCC asked why. Apple responded. In brief, Apple is concerned about the user experience, where Voice replaces iPhone’s functionality.
Much is being made about competition between Apple and Google. Android competes with the iPhone etc, etc.
I’m not too worked up about it.
Like everyone, I hate AT&T. Yet I still bought an iPhone. Its positives outweigh AT&T’s negatives. For now.
I get why Apple partnered with AT&T. It was a great way to sell a lot of iPhones. Eventually, Apple will end their exclusive with AT&T, in order to sell more iPhones.
I don’t think Apple cares at all what network a customer uses to make a phone call. Apple makes their money selling units and apps, not connecting calls or transmitting bits. Having Voice available on the iPhone will drive more sales. Eventually, it’ll happen.
Unless Apple decides to be the carrier itself. We know that Google is building its own backbone. There’s no indication that Apple is doing the same.
So I accept Apple’s explanation at face value, more or less. They’ve always been obsessed with the user experience. And holding up approval gives Apple some negotiation leverage, so of course they’ll play it out.
Server Fault Rocks
The website Server Fault rocks. It’s a social-esque Q&A site for system administrators and IT folks. Just today, I had some questions about SQL Server (e.g. backups, anti-virus, maintenance). I got quick, high quality answers.
Risk Adverse
Politicians are notoriously risk adverse. Now I kind of understand why. There really is no reward for initiative, firm beliefs, reform agendas, etc. Do anything, you’ll offend someone. Or worse, ruffle feathers and have others work against you just on principle.
From a game theory viewpoint, it makes sense.
Live to Fight Another Day
Successful politicians don’t play to win. They play to not lose.
It’s a little bit like Survivor. Live through this round and you get another bite at the apple. Eventually, if you stay in the game long enough, your number may come up.
Every know and then, someone will break away from the pack to try to grab the brass ring. The risks and costs are huge. There really isn’t much reward for doing so.
If you chance it and fail, your career is likely over. You certainly won’t get another chance, which might be why people eventually feel compelled to try. I heard the phrase “up or out” more than once, referring to an elected seeking a higher office.
Taunts
John Stewart mocks everyone blaming everyone else for inciting wackos. For instance, Bill O’Reilly and Joan Walsh blaming each other for the murder of Dr. Tiller.
Stewart makes a false equivalence. The right wing agitators have a profitable business model based on the industry of hate speech. Sure, there’s plenty of venom from the left. But we’re not calling for the outright slaughter of our political opponents.
More to the point, Roger Ebert criticizes Bill O’Reilly for degrading our political discourse. He makes many good points: O’Reilly is a bully that uses classic propaganda techniques. The point about name calling sticks with me. Here’s his examples:
- I say Liberal. You say Far Left.
- I say Far Right. You say Conservative.
- I say Biased. You say Fair and Balanced.
- I say Democratic party. You say Lunatic Lefties.
- I say Right-Wing Wingnuts. You say Republicans.
- I say Creationism. You say Intelligent Design.
- I say Environmentalists. You say Tree-Huggers.
