all micro contact rss

What The T.S.A. Isn't Telling Us - From Nate Silver

> Kudos to the T.S.A. if it anticipated the rush and had more staff on duty (why can’t it always be that way?). But it could also have also been that air travel volumes were lighter than anticipated — perhaps because passengers were perturbed by the new procedures and were traveling by other means (or staying at home.) It would be hard to regard the new procedures as a success if that were the case, particularly given that more people bypassing air travel for road travel means [more fatalities on American highways](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/18/the-hidden-costs-of-extra-airport-security/). > > We eventually will get some idea about this, since the Department of Transportation keeps [relatively detailed statistics](http://www.transtats.bts.gov/Data_Elements.aspx?Data=1) about passenger volumes. But it only comes after a lag of several months. In the meantime, we’ll have to keep in mind that if airports were less busy than expected, it may simply have meant that fewer people were flying.
via [fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com](http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/29/what-the-t-s-a-hasnt-told-us/)
I love that Nate Silver is so passionate about getting to the bottom of the actual numbers. He doesn’t assume that the TSA set up a vast conspiracy to make last week’s opt-out day seem like a big flop; but at the same time, he doesn’t assume that the TSA is telling the whole truth, either. In fact, he points out that there’s a clear lack of good numbers to support a full conclusion so far.

This is the sort of journalism we need more of in this country. Every time I read a story that quotes some poll, or hear a pundit throw numbers out there as if they were hard facts, I always shout in my head “What was the question?” “Were there follow up questions to clarify the respondent’s position?” “Who ran the poll, and whom did they ask?”

We are way too lazy nowadays to question the numbers people throw at us on a regular basis. And even the top respected journalists are guilty of it. I hear guests get away with throwing questionable statistics into discussions on This Week or Meet the Press all the time, and the hosts never follow up to ask where those numbers come from. They have fact checkers that you can go look up online after the show sometimes, but they know almost no one does that.

When you hear that the majority of Americans disapprove of the recent Health Care reforms, for instance, what is the next logical question in your head? Pundits, even liberal ones, have been using that statistic to suggest that people didn’t want health care reform, that it was a mistake for Obama to pursue it. The first question I want answered, but that no one ever asks, is “why didn’t they approve it?” “What was it they didn’t approve?” Was it because the bill went too far towards some grand Socialist takeover, or was it because the reforms were far too weak, and most of us wanted more? Knowing the answer to that question, it would seem to me, would have a significant impact on how we interpret that number.

My guess is that while some people were duped into thinking Health Care reform was tantamount to communism, far more of us disapproved because the reforms didn’t do nearly enough. (It was, after all, merely a watered-down version of the bills the Republicans used to propose in the 80s. Hardly what most would consider socialist.) And Obama was elected by a pretty big margin while promising big health care reform just a few years ago. But when you lump everyone who disapproves into one large group without asking why, you can paint whatever picture you like with it.

We liked health care the way it was, they want us to believe. Did we? Then why did we elect a president who promised to change it?

This method of painting any number to suit your political agenda is one of the primary instruments being used by our political parties to justify policies that are not serving the majority of people. As long as a poorly interpreted poll result suggests that most people want this or that, leaders can enact policies to suit their own interests, or those of their donors, while convincing us that it’s what “most” people want. Meanwhile, those of us paying attention are becoming more and more detached, because we are vastly under-represented. Which leads to fewer people voting, which actually helps them get even further away from our own best interests. The fewer people they have to convince, the easier it is for them to get more extreme.

We need to start demanding more accurate interpretations of polls. We need to start making journalists accountable for the opinions they present as facts. Otherwise, we’re just going to keep getting duped into thinking that any of our politicians actually care what we really think and are acting in our best interests.

Google TV in the Bargain basement bin

> **Sony’s price slashing promotion for its new Blu-Ray Google TV appliance indicates additional trouble for the Android-based device, following a content blockade imposed by television broadcasters, a rash of unenthusiastic reviews, and the fragmentation issues endemic to Android.** > > Sony announced a promotional $100 price cut on its $399 Google TV device, an unusually deep discount for a brand new product, especially for Sony. While the company offered a variety of Black Friday discounts on other Blu-Ray products, none approached the 25 percent off fire sale of its new Google TV box. > > Sony’s combination Blu-Ray and Google TV device was just introduced last month, making the slashed price an indication that the devices weren’t garnering much attention despite the media attention focused on Google TV and its use of Android. As *TechCrunch*[observed](http://techcrunch.com/2010/11/27/google-tv-already-in-trouble-sony-offering-25-off-blu-ray-google-tv-units/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29), “this doesn’t look so well for Google’s living room takeover plans.”
via [appleinsider.com](http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/11/29/deep_hardware_discounts_suggest_sluggish_sales_of_google_tv.html)
Funny, I don’t see many deep discounts on AppleTVs this year.

With the shift internally to the YouTube Division, the TV networks blocking almost all content, and now this steep discount, I’d say it’s just about time to add Google TV to the list of Google’s recent failures. Here’s the list, for those keeping score:

Nexus One

Wave

Buzz

Google TV

Hard to imagine any other company of this size making that many high profile mistakes in such a short span of time.

Galaxy Tab is more portable than an iPad—and your point is?

> By comparison, iPad is a PORTABLE device — you need a bag to carry it around — and it can act as a laptop replacement. > > Even though both tablets perform much of the same functions, similar to the truer equivalency between iPhone and an Android phone, their size differences and, by extension, how and how often they are accessed, means gTab and iPad will be used in completely different ways. > > I’ve been “wearing” gTab for nearly two weeks, and all comparisons boil down to this: gTab fits in your pocket.
via [dvice.com](http://dvice.com/archives/2010/11/ipad-vs-galaxy.php#1)
I understand that a lot of people are making this point about the Galaxy Tab being more portable, as in “put it in your pocket, not a bag” vs. the iPad. And thus, these are really two different products. So you can’t say, “what can the Tab do that the iPad can’t?” The iPad is obviously more powerful, and the bigger screen makes for much more powerful software. It’s also the same money or cheaper than the Tab. But the Tab isn’t supposed to compete with the iPad; it’s a computer you carry around in your pocket, not a bag.

Okay, fine. Wrong comparison.

So why don’t we compare the Tab to the other truly portable device we all have already? The one that’s already in our pocket?

What does the Tab give me that my phone doesn’t already give me?

A slightly larger screen is a bit better for reading, sure. But email, web surfing, even video, seem marginally better on the Tab, at best. There’s no Android software at all that you can run on a Tab that you can’t run on any modern Android phone. Everyone who uses a Tab admits it’s no good at anything you’d usually use a laptop for. And yet no one has explained how the tab is $600 better at anything you’d do on a phone, either.

In other words, if you already have an iPhone or an Android phone, why would you want this?

The iPad is successful because it’s bridging that gap between a laptop and a phone. There are tens of thousands of apps that are made specifically for the iPad that can’t run on an iPhone, or are less powerful on the iPhone.

The Tab is trying to bridge the gap between a phone and what, exactly? It’s a big, expensive, clunky phone, only without a phone in it.

You’re going to tell me that a large number of people are going to pay the same money as an iPad, or a bit less upfront with two years worth of monthly data fees, just to look at their email or movies on a slightly larger screen?

You have to really hate Apple to do that to yourself.

So yes, the Tab is not a bad device. It’s good at a few things, even, but for the money, if all you’re looking for is portability, you’re better off with an Android phone. The Tab is just not a device that solves a problem that most real people have.

A Physicist's perspective on Airport Security

> There are two different philosophies. The Israeli view is that one looks for the perpetrator, not the tool or weapon. All passengers about to board a flight are interviewed. Many in this country erroneously describe the process as “profiling,” but I think a better description would be “triage.” The Israeli view is that one does not waste time and resources on passengers who do not pose any threat to safety and security. > > [How Israelis do air security](http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/01/11/yeffet.air.security.israel/index.html?iref=allsearch) > > Those doing the interviews are generally college graduates who have completed their military service and have had significant additional training. The key point is that they are trusted to use their discretion on how much to investigate any given passenger. This system clearly catches those dressed in a T-shirt, with no checked baggage who have bought a one-way ticket for travel to Detroit, Michigan, in midwinter! > > The Transportation Security Administration system in the United States relies on searching for the tool or weapon. Those doing the screening have no discretion and follow a ritual ordained from above. We have now reached the point where this method is unworkable.
via [cnn.com](http://www.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/11/26/rez.air.security/index.html?eref=rss_topstories)
The main thrust of Rez’s argument, other than that the Israelis do security better, is that even if the small bombs that the scanners are meant to detect were to get onto a plane, setting them off would only cause maybe one or two casualties, and not take down the whole plane. Any bomb that you can hide on your person in this fashion is not powerful enough.

Now, that would be a tragedy, of course, if a few people died in one of these incidents, but considering how rare it would be for someone to attempt this, and considering how much more likely and easy it would be that someone could set off much more powerful explosives in other public places (subways, concerts, the security line of the airport itself), it makes no sense to go through this much effort in taxpayer money and inconvenience just to try and stop these small bombs from getting onto the airplane.

You have to draw a line of practicality somewhere, in other words. We drive every day, even though the highways are far more likely to kill you, because the need to get around outweighs the need to guarantee that every single car trip is not going to be fatal. The same is true for air travel.

You’re actually more likely to be killed by a mechanical failure, or a bird strike, than you are from one of these bombs when flying. So let’s stop pretending that the scanners are about security, and admit that they are about comforting the irrationally fearful. And then let’s educate those irrationally fearful people. That has to be cheaper and more effective all around.

SEC investigating Analysts over Apple stock price manipulation

> The *Journal* article singled out for special mention a > Nov. 12 note to clients by Rodman & Redshaw’s Ashok Kumar that > suggested, based on “supply chain checks,”  that iPad sales > might fall short of expectations this quarter. That note — which > we reported on [here](http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/11/12/macbook-air-cannibalizing-ipad/) > — helped spark a one-day run on Apple that shaved nearly $8 > billion off its market cap. > > The *Journal* did not say or imply that either Kumar or > his firm was under investigation.
via [instapaper.com](http://www.instapaper.com/text?u=http%3A%2F%2Ftech.fortune.cnn.com%2F2010%2F11%2F24%2Fis-the-sec-targeting-apple-analysts%2F%3Fsource%3Dyahoo_quote&article=98270851)
Well, I have to say I’m really surprised. I doubt anything will come of this investigation, but the fact that someone is acknowledging that analysts are doing these sorts of things at all is encouraging.