I just finished a book that was a complete waste of time and energy, and I don’t have a lot of either. Then why did I read it, you ask? I wanted to finish a book - not a good reason, but one reason. Also, I was intrigued by the premise that seemed to disappear in the first chapter or so but I wanted to see if it was played out later in the book. It wasn't.
I don't think I've ever read a collaboration between an old, established author and a new writer before. I’m not sure I will again. If the author whose work this is derivative of had any involvement beyond his name on the cover I would be surprised. This was fan-fiction that was well written at the sentence level but otherwise it was total crap.
If it were not familiar characters in a familiar setting no one would want to read it. The concept is not developed, the plot is not developed, the characters are not who or what they are claimed to be. Take out the names remembered from stories read forty years ago and there is nothing left of interest.
I finished it because I wanted to see how it played out. It sucked.
The plot is inconsistent and haphazard. Characters are thrown in just to attract the reader’s attention. The whole thing is like a sitcom best-of episode composed of flashbacks to previous episodes.
There are sections that are nothing more than a nearly word for word rehashing of stories from the 1970s and they do nothing to move the narrative – they are page filler.
I think I also kept hoping that it would get better – I got strung along just as I was supposed to. Nostalgia can be a powerful motivation, but I should have known better. When you go back and fill in the back story of course you make up some history that was not in the previous stories. This book changes the previous stories. Characters do not act like who they are, and the changes are massive enough to make them completely different characters. Let’s say it’s like taking Scarlett O’Hara and making her Florence Nightingale – or maybe turning Dorothy Gale into, oh, I don’t know, Ghengis Khan. Really, the reworking of the characters is absurd. Nothing in the older stories works if this is the back story. None of it is even possible.
If I weren’t so intent on reading something this month (2/11) I never would have finished this book. It really sucked.
I won’t say who it was by, just that it was science fiction. I suppose it could be seen as a lesson in how not to construct a novel.
I need to stop ranting and go read something good now.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Rats
No, not politicians this time. That was just an expletive.
I missed a friend’s birthday party. My wife was not doing well and I don’t like to leave her alone when she's this bad – even if she does tell me to go. And honestly I am not doing very well myself. I just don’t like to admit that.
The weather lately has been pretty rough on both of us. The constant change in air pressure, even if it is a nice, bright, sunny day, can wreak havoc with nerve damage. I imagine the winds today were a pretty good sign of the weather systems that are colliding overhead. It was bad enough to set off my leg in a big way – and when I’m in that kind of pain she is really suffering.
Well, this wasn’t meant to be a discourse on nerve damage, just a rant because I didn’t give my friend the abuse he deserves – I mean I didn’t add my congratulations and well wishes to everyone else’s.
I guess I’m just mad that I let a friend down, that’s a pretty bad thing to do.
Sorry Tom. Hope you had fun. Don’t worry, you’re not that old yet, and you don’t have to act it even when you are.
I missed a friend’s birthday party. My wife was not doing well and I don’t like to leave her alone when she's this bad – even if she does tell me to go. And honestly I am not doing very well myself. I just don’t like to admit that.
The weather lately has been pretty rough on both of us. The constant change in air pressure, even if it is a nice, bright, sunny day, can wreak havoc with nerve damage. I imagine the winds today were a pretty good sign of the weather systems that are colliding overhead. It was bad enough to set off my leg in a big way – and when I’m in that kind of pain she is really suffering.
Well, this wasn’t meant to be a discourse on nerve damage, just a rant because I didn’t give my friend the abuse he deserves – I mean I didn’t add my congratulations and well wishes to everyone else’s.
I guess I’m just mad that I let a friend down, that’s a pretty bad thing to do.
Sorry Tom. Hope you had fun. Don’t worry, you’re not that old yet, and you don’t have to act it even when you are.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Very predictable and totally expected
I hear a lot of people talking about how when Social Security was started there were few people covered and it was never planned to cover as many people as it does today. As if they had no idea how things would change in the country.
That’s total BS.
The actuaries who worked on Social Security were frighteningly accurate. They calculated population growth, mortality rates and the percentage of population that would be eligible for Social Security and they got it almost exactly right. They were actually a small percentage over in their estimates on number of retirees.
I do not understand actuaries. They frighten me sometimes. I think the stories written about strange men in dark suits who control our destiny are inspired when an author meets an actuary. But they know their business, and they got it right.
Social Security is not in crisis and does not and never has added one dime to the deficit.
That’s total BS.
The actuaries who worked on Social Security were frighteningly accurate. They calculated population growth, mortality rates and the percentage of population that would be eligible for Social Security and they got it almost exactly right. They were actually a small percentage over in their estimates on number of retirees.
I do not understand actuaries. They frighten me sometimes. I think the stories written about strange men in dark suits who control our destiny are inspired when an author meets an actuary. But they know their business, and they got it right.
Social Security is not in crisis and does not and never has added one dime to the deficit.
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Watson Round 3
Things are a little different.
I don’t know if Watson is getting slower or Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter have gotten better at buzzing in and anticipating the timing. Whichever it is, the humans are faring better than in the beginning.
It might be that Watson is slower on some types of questions than others and that the level of certainty may not be there for it to buzz in immediately. If it’s human adaptation, Brad got it figured out first but Ken came on strong.
I can see definite problems with how Watson analyzes the answers and falls short in certain ways. It has problems with some phrasing and structure – certain compound questions, and there are problems with associating definitions with words and selecting the right name or proper noun to settle on a response.
I don’t know if the test questions weren’t varied enough or if there is a problem that couldn’t be solved in time, but there are bugs in the analysis algorithms that I see as human in nature rather than hardware issues. Since some of the answers were properly parsed and others weren’t, there’s a depth to the analysis that is being inconsistently applied.
I wasn’t surprised that Watson won, but after watching I think that I could set up a Jeopardy! game that Watson lost. It depends on the distribution of question types.
Still, it was interesting. It was really just a 90 minute commercial for the IBM System 750 computers, but it was interesting. I’m sure there will be improvements.
Though I do wonder why Watson picked Toronto in the US Cities category
I don’t know if Watson is getting slower or Ken Jennings and Brad Rutter have gotten better at buzzing in and anticipating the timing. Whichever it is, the humans are faring better than in the beginning.
It might be that Watson is slower on some types of questions than others and that the level of certainty may not be there for it to buzz in immediately. If it’s human adaptation, Brad got it figured out first but Ken came on strong.
I can see definite problems with how Watson analyzes the answers and falls short in certain ways. It has problems with some phrasing and structure – certain compound questions, and there are problems with associating definitions with words and selecting the right name or proper noun to settle on a response.
I don’t know if the test questions weren’t varied enough or if there is a problem that couldn’t be solved in time, but there are bugs in the analysis algorithms that I see as human in nature rather than hardware issues. Since some of the answers were properly parsed and others weren’t, there’s a depth to the analysis that is being inconsistently applied.
I wasn’t surprised that Watson won, but after watching I think that I could set up a Jeopardy! game that Watson lost. It depends on the distribution of question types.
Still, it was interesting. It was really just a 90 minute commercial for the IBM System 750 computers, but it was interesting. I’m sure there will be improvements.
Though I do wonder why Watson picked Toronto in the US Cities category
Watson Round 2
It is definitely a mechanical advantage that is deciding this, and personally I don’t find that very impressive. Watson seems to have problems with the complex answers – the ones that are not worded in a basic manner. When it can pick out keywords it can find the answer and wins the button pushing race.
I’m not that impressed.
It is definitely an advance in question evaluation and answer retrieval, and it can handle certain levels of nuance in the question. I assume that there is a level of nuance in the answer selection that is also present that I can’t see because that’s all going on in the servers. That is impressive and intriguing. But the machine does have its problems.
I recorded this and watched it tonight. On to round 3.
I’m not that impressed.
It is definitely an advance in question evaluation and answer retrieval, and it can handle certain levels of nuance in the question. I assume that there is a level of nuance in the answer selection that is also present that I can’t see because that’s all going on in the servers. That is impressive and intriguing. But the machine does have its problems.
I recorded this and watched it tonight. On to round 3.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Watson Round 1
After the first day I would say that there is a definite advantage to the machine with the button pushing. On many questions where any Jeopardy! player would know the answer without hesitation Watson wins the race to push the button. So they are demonstrating a mechanical advantage. That is not much of technological breakthrough.
There have also been some interesting flubs on the part of the programmers.
First, the logistical problem. Watson gets information by text and electronic signal on when to answer, and apparently hasn’t been designed to interpret speech. In one case it gave a wrong answer after that same wrong answer had been given. It simply didn’t know that that had happened. It did know that it could try to answer – probably part of the whole signal button activation message – but it didn’t know that it was giving the same wrong answer. That one’s not a big deal. They focused on language interpretation which makes this a problem, we’ll see how serious, but it falls outside of the stated goals. It’s also impractical to surmount because it would require someone texting the response given by other contestants to Watson, and that wasn’t part of the plan.
The other issues are more programming problems. On more than one occasion Watson gave responses that were obviously wrong because it did not evaluate the entire answer. The response Watson gave seemed to be based on analysis of the first part of the answer that ignored the end. That’s either because of a prioritization based on length or punctuation, or it’s a deliberate shortcut. Either way it causes problems.
The two that I can think of demonstrated that Watson ignored or did not recognize crucial words in the answer. One was a question about trains where the response was ‘finis’ when the correct response was ‘terminal’. Watson evaluated the language reference in the answer but missed the association with trains. I don’t know if that, and the other case that escapes me at the moment, indicate a slip in textual analysis or a bug in the instructions.
I think I noticed one strategy in that Watson selects categories that have not been chosen yet when it has the chance. It seems to need a sample answer to evaluate the category. That’s not unlike human contestants, but I don’t remember ever seeing a human deliberately bounce around the board to do it, though.
So, there have been some interesting things, but I think Watson’s lead can be attributed to speed on the button rather than an advantage in ‘skill’. The graphic showing the possible responses and their weighting that Watson has picked is very interesting.
The fact that Watson knows Sauron but not Voldemort I will attribute to the age and preferred reading of the programmers – though I could be wrong. Maybe it was just the wording. After all, I know both of those.
There have also been some interesting flubs on the part of the programmers.
First, the logistical problem. Watson gets information by text and electronic signal on when to answer, and apparently hasn’t been designed to interpret speech. In one case it gave a wrong answer after that same wrong answer had been given. It simply didn’t know that that had happened. It did know that it could try to answer – probably part of the whole signal button activation message – but it didn’t know that it was giving the same wrong answer. That one’s not a big deal. They focused on language interpretation which makes this a problem, we’ll see how serious, but it falls outside of the stated goals. It’s also impractical to surmount because it would require someone texting the response given by other contestants to Watson, and that wasn’t part of the plan.
The other issues are more programming problems. On more than one occasion Watson gave responses that were obviously wrong because it did not evaluate the entire answer. The response Watson gave seemed to be based on analysis of the first part of the answer that ignored the end. That’s either because of a prioritization based on length or punctuation, or it’s a deliberate shortcut. Either way it causes problems.
The two that I can think of demonstrated that Watson ignored or did not recognize crucial words in the answer. One was a question about trains where the response was ‘finis’ when the correct response was ‘terminal’. Watson evaluated the language reference in the answer but missed the association with trains. I don’t know if that, and the other case that escapes me at the moment, indicate a slip in textual analysis or a bug in the instructions.
I think I noticed one strategy in that Watson selects categories that have not been chosen yet when it has the chance. It seems to need a sample answer to evaluate the category. That’s not unlike human contestants, but I don’t remember ever seeing a human deliberately bounce around the board to do it, though.
So, there have been some interesting things, but I think Watson’s lead can be attributed to speed on the button rather than an advantage in ‘skill’. The graphic showing the possible responses and their weighting that Watson has picked is very interesting.
The fact that Watson knows Sauron but not Voldemort I will attribute to the age and preferred reading of the programmers – though I could be wrong. Maybe it was just the wording. After all, I know both of those.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Man vs Machine
Well, man vs a machine and all of the people who designed the processes behind it.
If you haven’t heard, an IBM computer is on Jeopardy!. I heard a few details on the radio that confirm my suspicions. There will be cheating involved.
At first the folks at IBM didn’t want to use the signal button, they wanted to just electronically transmit the answer. When the Jeopardy! people insisted that they use the button, IBM complained that they were imposing human limitations on their machine. Well, yeah, since this is supposed to be a competition against humans and that’s part of the rules.
Next comes the part I was thinking about – when the Watson computer hits the button to answer. Your average human contestant has to wait until the answer is read and then hit the button, so they anticipate when that will be. If they ring in early there is a .25 second penalty. Watson knows when the light goes on indicating that it can hit the button and never makes a mistake on the timing and it can respond faster than a human. That sure is fair and just like a human.
One of the comebacks is that the humans have the advantage because they understand the nuance of the questions and it takes Watson 2 – 3 seconds to figure it out. In other words, less time than it takes to read the answer. And I thought the whole point was to demonstrate that the computer could understand nuance. So they cheat.
Also, Watson gets the answer as electronic text, no reading involved the way the humans do it – or listening if they are blind as has happened. It’s getting more and more human all the time here.
Now let’s get to the Daily Double wagering. Watson calculates exactly how many questions are left, how much money can still be won and how much it needs – and what it’s opponents scores are and determines it’s wager based on what it can afford to lose and what it needs to win based on criteria that few if any humans can track at any time let alone on a TV stage in the middle of a Jeopardy! game. Not much of an advantage there. Well, that one is not that incredible and advantage, but it is one.
And then there’s the memory that the machine has. Do you think it can store more answers than the average human can?
Look, I’m intrigued by the logic behind this. Interpreting the answers and then searching for the right answers based on English language is an interesting challenge. They say it has shown no insight into how the human brain works, but I can see it leading to language research. It is being mentioned as a way to do fast research since it can search, say, all medical journals and texts and then return an answer that a doctor can evaluate and use or discard.
I think this is just another example where, when humans can quantify how a task is performed then figure out how to mechanize it, they can build a machine that is faster and stronger than a human. We’ve had steam hammers, electronic calculators, computers, computers that play chess (Deep Blue) and now this. That’s fine. We’ll see a test of how well people can make a machine to perform a task that has only been done before by humans. Just don’t call it a fair contest when the machine is allowed to have advantages unrelated to the human component that is being touted – namely language interpretation and solution selection. That’s like saying a car racing a human is fair because all you’re testing is how to navigate the race course mechanically.
Yeah, I’ll watch it. Like I said, it’s an intriguing problem they’ve apparently solved and I want to see the demonstration. I just want them to admit that there is no fair contest being waged here. What we have is a very long, and hopefully interesting, commercial for IBM.
If you haven’t heard, an IBM computer is on Jeopardy!. I heard a few details on the radio that confirm my suspicions. There will be cheating involved.
At first the folks at IBM didn’t want to use the signal button, they wanted to just electronically transmit the answer. When the Jeopardy! people insisted that they use the button, IBM complained that they were imposing human limitations on their machine. Well, yeah, since this is supposed to be a competition against humans and that’s part of the rules.
Next comes the part I was thinking about – when the Watson computer hits the button to answer. Your average human contestant has to wait until the answer is read and then hit the button, so they anticipate when that will be. If they ring in early there is a .25 second penalty. Watson knows when the light goes on indicating that it can hit the button and never makes a mistake on the timing and it can respond faster than a human. That sure is fair and just like a human.
One of the comebacks is that the humans have the advantage because they understand the nuance of the questions and it takes Watson 2 – 3 seconds to figure it out. In other words, less time than it takes to read the answer. And I thought the whole point was to demonstrate that the computer could understand nuance. So they cheat.
Also, Watson gets the answer as electronic text, no reading involved the way the humans do it – or listening if they are blind as has happened. It’s getting more and more human all the time here.
Now let’s get to the Daily Double wagering. Watson calculates exactly how many questions are left, how much money can still be won and how much it needs – and what it’s opponents scores are and determines it’s wager based on what it can afford to lose and what it needs to win based on criteria that few if any humans can track at any time let alone on a TV stage in the middle of a Jeopardy! game. Not much of an advantage there. Well, that one is not that incredible and advantage, but it is one.
And then there’s the memory that the machine has. Do you think it can store more answers than the average human can?
Look, I’m intrigued by the logic behind this. Interpreting the answers and then searching for the right answers based on English language is an interesting challenge. They say it has shown no insight into how the human brain works, but I can see it leading to language research. It is being mentioned as a way to do fast research since it can search, say, all medical journals and texts and then return an answer that a doctor can evaluate and use or discard.
I think this is just another example where, when humans can quantify how a task is performed then figure out how to mechanize it, they can build a machine that is faster and stronger than a human. We’ve had steam hammers, electronic calculators, computers, computers that play chess (Deep Blue) and now this. That’s fine. We’ll see a test of how well people can make a machine to perform a task that has only been done before by humans. Just don’t call it a fair contest when the machine is allowed to have advantages unrelated to the human component that is being touted – namely language interpretation and solution selection. That’s like saying a car racing a human is fair because all you’re testing is how to navigate the race course mechanically.
Yeah, I’ll watch it. Like I said, it’s an intriguing problem they’ve apparently solved and I want to see the demonstration. I just want them to admit that there is no fair contest being waged here. What we have is a very long, and hopefully interesting, commercial for IBM.
Monday, February 7, 2011
It’s probably not as easy as they think
As the Super Bowl was about to start yesterday I wondered if people bothered to rehearse the national anthem or if they all figured they knew the song and had it covered. The Star Spangled Banner has a tough range. And while you may know the lyrics and can sing it in a crowd, I imagine it’s different when you’re standing in a stadium filled with more than 100,000 people, on TV with millions of viewers, at the largest single sporting event there is.
Christina Aguilera wasn’t the first to flub it, probably not the worst and I’m sure she won’t be the last. This will be on the news for a few days and on YouTube forever, but she’ll laugh it off eventually. Maybe it will be a lesson to others who step up there to sing.
Christina Aguilera wasn’t the first to flub it, probably not the worst and I’m sure she won’t be the last. This will be on the news for a few days and on YouTube forever, but she’ll laugh it off eventually. Maybe it will be a lesson to others who step up there to sing.
Icons
I understand the appeal of icons. I also understand the appeal of Ronald Reagan as a conservative icon. What I don’t understand is how Reagan actually is a conservative icon today.
In the 80s Reagan represented what the Republican party stood for. He didn’t actually do those things, but he was the public face of party policy. He was the President so he was the image of the party’s position on the issues. The public image was in large part opposite of what was happening. But the President gets the benefit of the doubt especially when the messaging is so good.
But today the facts are obvious and well documented and disseminated. Yet the icon remains.
I suppose it’s the need for a symbol that is driving the message. Very little that Reagan actually did lives up to modern standards for Republicans. So the focus is kept narrow to allow the image to survive. Without that there is nothing to rally around. That gives strength to the message. It gives strength to the Republicans. So the icon must be supported.
It is a weakness for Democrats that they don’t have that sort of image to use to focus attention and action. It makes the message weak, whatever the strength of the message. The image outweighs the facts. A strong image supports the message even if it is built on lies and half-truths. A weak image destroys the message however important the message is.
Marketing strategy is very important when you are trying to sell something.
In the 80s Reagan represented what the Republican party stood for. He didn’t actually do those things, but he was the public face of party policy. He was the President so he was the image of the party’s position on the issues. The public image was in large part opposite of what was happening. But the President gets the benefit of the doubt especially when the messaging is so good.
But today the facts are obvious and well documented and disseminated. Yet the icon remains.
I suppose it’s the need for a symbol that is driving the message. Very little that Reagan actually did lives up to modern standards for Republicans. So the focus is kept narrow to allow the image to survive. Without that there is nothing to rally around. That gives strength to the message. It gives strength to the Republicans. So the icon must be supported.
It is a weakness for Democrats that they don’t have that sort of image to use to focus attention and action. It makes the message weak, whatever the strength of the message. The image outweighs the facts. A strong image supports the message even if it is built on lies and half-truths. A weak image destroys the message however important the message is.
Marketing strategy is very important when you are trying to sell something.
A Centenary
Ronald Reagan was born 100 years ago yesterday. He is idolized by quite a few people in the country, and I’ve never understood why. I get that the people he helped would like him, as well as those who supported his policies. What I don’t get is why so many people love him for being something he wasn’t.
Contemporary conservatives who espouse small government and low taxes and fighting terrorism and having bigger and better bombs seem to love the guy. But for a conservative icon Ronald Reagan did some strange things. Yes, he attacked unions, used divisive campaign tactics, opposed communism, demonized government and he cut taxes – once.
He also raised taxes 11 times, 7 of his 8 years in office.
He increased the size of the federal government.
He increased government spending.
He more than doubled the deficit, increasing it more than all previous Presidents combined.
He supported amnesty for undocumented immigrants.
He sold weapons to Iran.
He helped fund South American rebels.
He got Marines killed in Lebanon and then cut and ran.
He saved Social Security – in part by raising taxes.
He signed the first START treaty.
He wanted a world free of nuclear weapons.
I’m not saying that all of those things are bad, but I’m really not seeing the conservative hero in there.
ETA: This isn't meant as an attack on Reagan or anyone else. I just don't understand the idolization when the facts don't match the desired message.
Contemporary conservatives who espouse small government and low taxes and fighting terrorism and having bigger and better bombs seem to love the guy. But for a conservative icon Ronald Reagan did some strange things. Yes, he attacked unions, used divisive campaign tactics, opposed communism, demonized government and he cut taxes – once.
He also raised taxes 11 times, 7 of his 8 years in office.
He increased the size of the federal government.
He increased government spending.
He more than doubled the deficit, increasing it more than all previous Presidents combined.
He supported amnesty for undocumented immigrants.
He sold weapons to Iran.
He helped fund South American rebels.
He got Marines killed in Lebanon and then cut and ran.
He saved Social Security – in part by raising taxes.
He signed the first START treaty.
He wanted a world free of nuclear weapons.
I’m not saying that all of those things are bad, but I’m really not seeing the conservative hero in there.
ETA: This isn't meant as an attack on Reagan or anyone else. I just don't understand the idolization when the facts don't match the desired message.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)