Thank You Tony

I’m not making this up. There is a web site called ThankYouTony.com. It was set up “to thank Prime Minister Tony Blair for his support of the American actions in Iraq”. The blurb reads:

Whereas, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Tony Blair, has vigorously supported the United States in the disarmament of Iraq;
Whereas, the United Kingdom is a strong and loyal ally to the United States;
Whereas, Prime Minister Tony Blair has committed substantial military forces of the United Kingdom to the current action in Iraq;
The American people extend their heartfelt thanks to Prime Minister Tony Blair for his courage and leadership; and
Extend their deep appreciation to the United Kingdom and the men and women of its armed forces.

Click Here to Thank Tony

And click here to throw up. Don’t you just love the ‘whereas’ stuff!

Good news from Microsoft

Avast, ye scurvy dogs! From Good Morning, Silicon Valley

Microsoft on Tuesday officially launched Windows Genuine Advantage, a program designed to temper the widespread counterfeiting of the company’s software by requiring Windows users to verify their operating system’s authenticity. From now on, you must prove you paid Microsoft before downloading updates through Windows Update, Microsoft Update for Windows content, and the Microsoft Download Center (critical security updates will be available to users with or without WGA validation). Customers who discover they have a counterfeit copy of Windows are eligible for a legitimate copy of the OS at no charge, assuming they’re able to provide Microsoft with a proof of purchase.

Why is this good news? Simply because piracy of the Windows operating system has been one of the factors serving to obscure the real (and exhorbitant) cost of Microsoft-based computing. In most of the poorer parts of the world (and virtually the whole of Asia), people run Windows-based systems on pirated software — which is why they have not yet thought seriously about Open Source (i.e. free) software. After all, Windows has been — to them — ‘free’ software. But all this is going to change as Redmond seeks to claw back its rightful royalties. So at Ndiyo we are delighted by this turn of events. More power to Mr Gates’s anti-piracy elbow.

Update:: it was cracked within 24 hours. Sigh. Thanks to Bill T for the news, though.

Open source beer

Richard Stallman has always emphasised the distinction that free software is “free as in open rather than as in ‘free beer'” when trying to communicate the spirit of the free software movement. Now comes an intriguing twist.

Students from the Information Technology University in Copenhagen is trying to help by releasing what they are calling the world’s first open source beer recipe.

It is called Vores Oel, or Our Beer, and the recipe is proving to be a worldwide hit.

The idea behind the beer comes from open source software. This is software whose code is made publicly available for anyone to change and improve, provided that those changes and improvements are then shared in turn.

SunSignals

Here’s a neat idea for anxious parents heading for the sun. SunSignals are little adhesive patches which change colour when the level of UV radiation they’ve absorbed reaches danger level. UV rays break chemical bonds in the substance used to impregnate the patches, causing a pH shift which causes the colour to change from yellow to deep orange. Neat, eh?

An open letter to Hillary Clinton…

… from Steven Johnson, writing via the Los Angeles Times

July 27, 2005

Dear Sen. Clinton:

I’m writing to commend you for calling for a $90-million study on the effects of video games on children, and in particular the courageous stand you have taken in recent weeks against the notorious “Grand Theft Auto” series. I’d like to draw your attention to another game whose nonstop violence and hostility has captured the attention of millions of kids — a game that instills aggressive thoughts in the minds of its players, some of whom have gone on to commit real-world acts of violence and sexual assault after playing. I’m talking, of course, about high school football. I know a congressional investigation into football won’t play so well with those crucial swing voters, but it makes about as much sense as an investigation into the pressing issue that is Xbox and PlayStation 2.

Lots more good stuff in the letter. I particularly like this passage:

Another key question: Of all the games that kids play, which ones require the most mental exertion? Parents can play this at home: Try a few rounds of Monopoly or Go Fish with your kids, and see who wins. I suspect most families will find that it’s a relatively even match. Then sit down and try to play “Halo 2” with the kids. You’ll be lucky if you survive 10 minutes.

But the irony will probably be lost on the former First Lady.

Suicide bombers or dupes?

One thing puzzled me in the immediate aftermath of the 7/7 London bombings. Media reports, presumeably sourced from police accounts, claimed that the CCTV footage of the bombers at King’s Cross station showed them laughing and joshing as they went to their deaths.

Now, even allowing for the fact that Islamic fundamentalists allegedly believe that 77 vestal virgins and other delights await them after martyrdom, this seemed a bit odd. It contrasted sharply, for example, with the CCTV footage of the 9/11 hijackers, most of whom looked sombre, or at least serious, as they queued to board the planes.

I had no way of knowing whether the London media reports about the King’s Cross footage were accurate, but was left with the thought: what if these guys were just monkeys who were unaware that their organ-grinder(s) had set them up for involuntary martyrdom?

Now comes an interesting report in the New York Times raising much the same question. Excerpt:

LONDON, July 26 – Within hours of the July 7 attacks here, many British police and intelligence officials assumed that the four bombers had intended to die with their bombs.

But in recent days, some police officials are increasingly considering the possibility that the men did not plan to commit suicide and were duped into dying.

Investigators raising doubts about the suicide assumption have cited evidence to support this theory. Each of the four men who died in the July 7 attacks purchased round-trip railway tickets from Luton to London. Germaine Lindsay’s rented car left in Luton had a seven-day parking sticker on the dashboard.

A large quantity of explosives were stored in the trunk of that car, perhaps for another attack. Another bomber had just spent a large sum to repair his car. The men carried driver’s licenses and other ID cards with them to their deaths, unusual for suicide bombers.

In addition, none left behind a note, videotape or Internet trail as suicide bombers have done in the past. And the bombers’ families were baffled by what seemed to be their decisions to kill themselves.

While some of these clues could be seen as the work of men intent on covering their trail, some investigators increasingly believe that the men may have been conned into carrying the bombs onto the trains and leaving them, thinking they were going to explode minutes later.

There remains some evidence suggesting that these were suicide bombers, beyond the fact that all died in the blasts. Their bodies, all of which were recovered, were positioned in a way that led investigators to make a preliminary determination that these may have been suicide attacks.

One of the remaining mysteries that neither camp can explain away is that the attacker on the bus died 57 minutes after the blasts on the trains; witnesses saw him putting his hand in the backpack. The bus bomber could support either theory.

To further complicate the matter, there are conflicting witness accounts of the behavior of the July 21 attackers. Some fled after the bombs failed to explode; at least one, on the bus, was said to have left the scene before the failed detonation.

Microsoft wipes out Apple

Er, I know that mapping services are the New Big Thing, but this is ridiculous. The Register is reporting that Microsoft’s Virtual Earth satellite imagery shows no buildings at the address of Apple’s HQ in Cupertino. In contrast, Google Maps shows Chateau iPod in all its glory. I’m sure this has nothing to do with the fact that Apple now has 4.5% of the personal computer market.

Quote of the day

My feeling was (and is): You don’t adopt the mannerisms of big, successful companies when you’re small, because those mannerisms aren’t what made the companies successful.

They’re actually symptoms of what is killing the company, because it’s become too big. It’s like if you meet an really old, really rich guy covered in liver spots and breathing with an oxygen tank, and you say, “I want to be rich, too, so I’m going to start walking with a cane and I’m going to act crotchety and I’m going to get liver disease.”

Will Shipley, founder of Omni, quoted by Quentin.

Ambassador Lite

The UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office is advertising a cushy job in this week’s Economist. It’s the post of HM Ambassador to the Holy See (aka the Vatican). “The Holy See”, says the blurb,

has the status of a csovereign state. It plays an important role on international issues of importance to HMG such as Africa, development and the fight against poverty. As Ambassador, you will act on instructions from the UK Government, report on the Holy See’s response, advance HMG’s overseas priorities, and represent the UK at official functions and ceremonial events (including religious ceremonies).

Hmmm… nice work if you can get it. Wonder if they are open to Muslim applicants. But wait — the salary is a pittance — in the range £42,640 – £60,405 pa, which seems a trifle mean for such an important post — even if it is “supplemented by a fully furnished residence, allowances, and an accountable entertainment allowance of up to £6,000 per annum”.

Er, could it be that HMG doesn’t really think that the Vatican is all that important? Answer, yes: a friend who knows about these things says that the Holy See post is really just a step up from a consulate. So this is really an ad for an Ambassador-Lite.

A rational response to suicide bombing

I do not live or work in London, but I go there often for meetings and sometimes for fun. Like millions of others who use the London tube system, I’ve been pondering what I should be doing in the wake of the bombings. My conclusion is that I should continue to use the tube because (a) the probability of being injured or killed is still vanishingly small, and (b) one should not be intimidated by terrorists. At first sight, (a) looks like a rational response, while (b) seems merely emotional or rhetorical. But the Economist pointed me to “Fear and the Response to Terrorism: An Economic Analysis”, a fascinating paper by Gary Becker (who is a Nobel laureate in economics) and Yona Rubinstein which has made me think that perhaps both are rational responses.

The society which has had the most experience of living with suicide bombing is Israel, and Becker and Rubinstein had the brilliant idea of examining how Israelis have responded to the threat. They looked at, for example, how bus bombings affect passenger behaviour. In the year November 2001 to November 2002, Israeli buses suffered an average of one suicide attack a month. This apparently had a profound effect on passengers — use of public buses went down by 30%.

But when they looked more closely at these figures, Becker and Rubinstein found significant differences between the responses of casual and regular bus users. Casual users (those who bought tickets on the day of travel) were much more likely to shy away (each attack cut their numbers by 40%). Regular users (who bought season tickets) seemed to have been largely undeterred.

Well, you say, maybe this is because season-ticket holders have no alternative. But Becker and Rubinstein found a similar pattern in patrons of cafes (also a target of suicide bombers). As the number of cafe-bombings increased, casual users stayed away, while habitues indulged their habit as usual. And nobody could really argue that one ‘has’ to use a cafe in the same sense that one may ‘have’ to use a bus to get to work.

The key to all this is the distinction between risk and fear. There is a non-linear relationship between the two which is what terrorism seeks to exploit: a small increase in risk leads to a disproportionate increase in fear. But, say Becker and Rubinstein,

Fear can be managed. Persons can handle their fears. They do so by accumulating the necessary skills. Like other investments in human capital, it is not a free-lunch and it does not pay back the same to anyone. Those who are more likely to benefit from the risky activity will invest and overcome their fears, while others will substitute the risky activity by other consumption or production plans.

So the rational response to the London bombings is business as usual. Bombers can nudge up the statistical risk a little. But only we can increase the fear.