How to get to a human being

Are you infuriated by companies which give you a recorded message saying “we really value your call” and then send you through a Kafkaesque maze for 20 minutes before putting you on hold in a queue? Well, here’s a terrific idea — a database which tells you the phone codes needed to bypass the maze. To cheat the Citibank system, for example, just key in the sequence 0#0#0#0#0#0#.

Unfortunately, the codes on this site are for US companies. We need one for the UK — urgently.

Update: Thanks to James Cridland for pointing out that there is already a UK page. Yippee! And to Harry Metcalfe for pointing out that, in many phone-maze systems, pressing the hash key will enable you to bypass the maze. Always worth trying, he says.

The Crackberry saga

This morning’s Observer column

The Blackberry saga has turned out to be a high-tech rehash of Bleak House’s Jarndyce v Jarndyce. And, as in the Dickens novel, nobody comes out of this looking good. RIM was foolish to have ignored NTP’s claims early on, when it could have settled for a modest amount. But it didn’t, and its product took off and suddenly made it a valuable target, which in turn stiffened the resolve of NTP’s lawyers to stick with the case.

The story also highlights the absurdity of the legal chains that now entangle the technology industry. After all, NTP makes nothing, delivers no service, makes no contribution to society other than by paying its taxes. RIM has created a service that apparently offers fantastic benefits to consumers – and may enhance governments’ ability to communicate in crisis situations. Yet it’s RIM which may go under. It’s daft. But that’s intellectual property for you…

Quirky note: Just noticed (Sunday, 10:06 UK time) that the column is top of Google News coverage of the saga. As far as I know, that’s a first for me.

Dear Harvard

Larry Summers has resigned as President of Harvard, ahead of a no-confidence vote among the academic staff of the institution. In his Letter to the Harvard Community he writes:

I have notified the Harvard Corporation that I will resign as President of the University as of June 30, 2006. Working closely with all parts of the Harvard community, and especially with our remarkable students, has been one of the great joys of my professional life. However, I have reluctantly concluded that the rifts between me and segments of the Arts and Sciences faculty make it infeasible for me to advance the agenda of renewal that I see as crucial to Harvard’s future. I believe, therefore, that it is best for the University to have new leadership.

Harvard’s greatness has always come from its ability to evolve as the world and its demands change – to educate and draw forth the energy of each successive generation in new and creative ways. Believing deeply that complacency is among the greatest risks facing Harvard, I have sought for the last five years to prod and challenge the University to reach for the most ambitious goals in creative ways. There surely have been times when I could have done this in wiser or more respectful ways. My sense of urgency has stemmed from my conviction that Harvard has a special ability to make a real difference in a world desperately in need of wisdom of all kinds.

The surprising thing is that he has lasted this long, given the complacency and political correctness of the Harvard humanities establishment. There’s a good analysis of his ‘mistakes’ in the NYT. Mistake No. 1 is “If the board says it wants you to ‘shake things up’ and ‘bring change,’ don’t believe them.” After taking sabbatical leave, Summers will return to Harvard as an ordinary prof. Well, as ordinary as he can manage anyway.

Alan Dershowitz, the celebrated law professor, is profoundly irritated by what’s happened. “A PLURALITY of one faculty has brought about an academic coup d’etat against not only Harvard University president Lawrence Summers but also against the majority of students, faculty, and alumni”, he wrote in the Boston Globe.

The Faculty of Arts and Sciences, which forced Summers’s resignation by voting a lack of confidence in him last March and threatening to do so again on Feb. 28, is only one component of Harvard University and is hardly representative of widespread attitudes on the campus toward Summers. The graduate faculties, the students, and the alumni generally supported Summers for his many accomplishments. The Faculty of Arts and Sciences includes, in general, some of the most radical, hard-left elements within Harvard’s diverse constituencies. And let there be no mistake about the origin of Summers’s problem with that particular faculty: It started as a hard left-center conflict. Summers committed the cardinal sin against the academic hard left: He expressed politically incorrect views regarding gender, race, religion, sexual preference, and the military.

It’s worth noting that Summers was wildly popular with Harvard students, possibly because of his views that (i) the professorial community wasn’t terribly interested in providing Harvard’s student ‘customers’ (who pay upwards of $50,000 a year) with much in the way of ‘service’, and (ii) something should be done about that.