Today’s post comes from a very special guest. Some whisper he is the only person ever to outsmart Chuck Norris – and live. Whatever the truth, his name is Zach and this is his story.

Not digital TV.

I’m not sure if the rest of the world knows, but for the past decade the American government has been trying to convert all televisions and stations to run only in digital. We’ve been bombarded with the ever-approaching deadline (Feb. 17th) when this change will be final and no stations will broadcast in analog ever again. On a personal level, I’m pretty sick of hearing about it.

If you haven’t heard of this bullshit, I will briefly summarize. Everything’s going to digital. If you have cable or satellite, you’re fine. If you bought your TV in the last two years, you’re fine. Really this only affects you if you watch the free signals you get through an antenna.

So here we are about ten days from this cataclysmic reshuffling of our World Order. And the government has now decided to delay this magical date until sometime this summer, because they fear that some people, somewhere are not prepared. Okay, I’m imagining the 14% of Americans who don’t have cable or satellite (according to the FCC’s numbers in 2006). Now I’m imagining the 2% of those who haven’t watched TV in the last year (guesstimate). Hmm, what will they do? I’m imagining them calling the television manufacturer, the TV station, or going to Best Buy or RadioShack and asking what the deal is, and within five minutes being explained the whole situation.

Still not digital TV.

So I was wondering – why is the government doing this? I understand ‘advancement of the society’, but honestly the American government doesn’t give a shit about that. Well, it was finally explained to the American public in an interview with Amy Schatz.

She explained that analog signals take up more space (bandwidth) of the frequency range than digital signals. The hopes are that these frequency ranges that are abandoned by television can then be used for police and emergency services communications, or for cell phones. Also, and what I find way more likely – the government plans to auction off these unused bands to the highest bidder.

Confused by all this frequency bands and signals and how the size of the signal could matter when you can’t see any of it? Frequency refers to the pattern made by a signal as it occurs on an oscilloscope. Signals tend to bob up and down in energy, giving them a wavy pattern, and the frequency is how many waves pass in a certain amount of time.

Signals like television, radio, cell phones, satellites, garage door openers, wi-fi networks, all of these work on different frequencies that are divided into bands for specific use so that you don’t inadvertently open your garage with your BlackBerry. Or, as I learned in my career as a radarman in the U.S. Navy, if you don’t shut down certain bands of the defense radar when you get too close to land, you can knock out a whole island’s ability to receive the World Cup Soccer game, and they can get mighty pissed. So by getting rid of these analog TV signals, which take up a large amount of the frequency ‘real estate’, we’re ‘clearing the land’ for new signals.

Close enough.

Well, I still don’t see why this has to be a pressing issue on the Senate floor, but since I reprogrammed my TV just this month and found that I now have three PBSs and four other channels I didn’t have, I’m growing to like it. The thing that drives me crazy though is when the signals get interference. In analog the picture gets snowy but the sound is still there so you don’t really miss what is going on. But in digital, if the signal messes up it skips like a DVD – sound included. It makes me want to burn this muthaf$cka to the ground.

Take care,
-Z

I shit you not.

While wandering past a Crumpler store (you know – those colourful courier bags that were popular maybe 10 years ago), I saw a display of Crumpler-branded toilet paper. I found the idea intriguing enough to go in and look around for the first time ever.

Turns out they sell the stuff in shop @ $2/roll, and apparently for $3/roll on their website as well. Cute gimmick, but why you’d actually buy some I don’t know. Unless you’re a vain, idle blogger with a perverse sense of irony…

Let’s just say its function didn’t quite match its form, but being clearly ornamental I think we can let them slide. All told, it’s a pretty spunky move daring people to literally shit on your company image.

UPDATE: Found out Crumpler were actually started in Australia. As a country we don’t tend to export much in the way of global fashion, so this impressed me. Though I still don’t think I would buy one, am now officially a Crumpler fan.

I recently started volunteering for a remarkable nonprofit called Question Box, after following (and talking incessantly about) them for nearly a year. Their aim is to bring the web to poor, often illiterate people in remote areas. On the weekend I caught up for a chat with the project’s founder, Rose Shuman.

Andy: To kick things off, could you please tell us a little about your background?

Rose: Certainly. I am founder of Open Mind and the Question Box Project. I am a consultant specializing in the intersection of business and international development. On the side, I consult for a social enterprise, Adlens, in Oxford, UK. Previously, I managed corporate relations for one of the largest nonprofits in the U.S., Direct Relief International. I hold two BAs and a Masters from Brown University, in Rhode Island.

Andy: So, Question Box – what’s it all about?

Rose: Question Box brings the internet to people who will likely never get online in their lives, or at least in the near future. It’s a local language telephone hotline that connects people to Operators. They connect to the Operator through Question Boxes, which were designed especially for the project. Question Boxes are metal boxes with a hacked mobile phone inside that calls only the Operator. The users can ask just about any question imaginable, and the Operators look the answer up for them, usually translating the question into English first. It allows one internet-connected person to service the needs of thousands, without needing to bring expensive infrastructure into unserved places.

Andy: Are the boxes always part of the loop? Can people call the Operators directly?

Rose: That’s the next step in the project. We want to make the service available from several portals – physical Question Boxes, users’ cell phones, plus we are building in SMS and web query functions as well. We are about to pilot a variation on the concept in Uganda, in which community workers with cell phones will introduce the service to villagers.

Andy: What inspired the project?

Rose: A very long day at a desk in a Mountain View, California hotel room. I was meeting someone at Google.org the next day for a job interview, and I wanted to say something original. So, drawing up my years of experience in development, I started brainstorming in a notebook, which I still have. Eventually, I came to Question Box, fully formed. I didn’t get the job but the concept still tugged at my sleeve.

Andy: So where are the boxes currently running?

Rose: Right now, we have one in a village called Loni outside of Pune. Until recently, we had a second one in a Pune slum, but it was experiencing a technical difficulty. It’s going back into the trenches in a couple of weeks. There are also plans to pilot one in Orissa in partnership with an ICT organization, eKutir.

Andy: What kind of questions to end-users typically ask? Is it a challenge to convey the extent of the resources available on the web?

Rose: Currently, users are asking a lot about train times and produce prices. In the previous pilot, there was more cricket and university scores. We haven’t tried to explain the web or what’s on it yet to people, still observing what they come up with. However, the Operator is going to start prompting people with suggestions, to see if we plant some seeds.

Andy: How are Operators selected, and what kind of training are they given?

Rose: Operators need to be internet-savvy, fluently speak the local language, and read and write English. They also must be able to improvise. There is a training handbook, as well as tester and practice questions.

Andy: Has there been a case study yet showing how a question box has raised a person’s quality of life?

Rose: Not yet. The main evidence we have is by looking at the questions and figuring out the implied value. A researcher would be a welcome addition.

Andy: What do you do with the data after it’s logged?

Rose: Right now it’s being saved for analysis. We’re interested in what is being asked, by whom, and if they are coming back or not. Also, it is useful to understand how long it takes the Operator to search a query. It also helps us track the Operator’s performance.

Andy: Have there been concerns about user privacy?

Rose: Right now, no. Users are identified by first name only.

Andy: So how many people are working on the project right now? Could you give us a breakdown of the roles involved?

Rose: Let’s see – me, our CTO, 3 volunteers, 3 Indian MBAs in Pune, plus their professor; 2 engineers in Pune, plus a few people in Uganda who are with a new partner organization. Then there’s the Operators, a Board of Advisors, plus a slew of informal advisors. Not to mention our lawyer… It’s quite a collection, honestly.

Andy: In terms of infrastructure, what does the project look like from the organizational end? What kind of technologies do you use to collaborate with remote volunteers, workers and administrators?

Rose: That’s the least developed part of our org. Right now, it is all email, chat and calls. We would love to be introduced to a better system that allowed the team to cross-pollinate, a place, that was free or at least affordable.

Andy: Have you ever encountered resistance to a Question Box deployment from local authorities or community figures?

Rose: None so far. Before going into a place, we get permissions to make sure it has the proper benediction.

Andy: In a perfect world, what will the Question Box project look like in 5 years?

Rose: Question Box would be widely available to people in the developing world, both through their phones and via Question Boxes in storefronts. Millions of questions would be answered annually, and it would be the place to go for information. Basically, that sounds like a lot of fun.

Andy: Given it’s a free service, how do you envision the project sustaining itself monetarily moving forward?

Rose: It will be a mix of user payment per call, sponsorships, and possibly underwriting from foundations or the government.

Andy: Where the service isn’t pay-per-call, can you see potential dangers to the freedom and impartiality of the information given?

Rose: I think in a government case, it would either have to be an unfettered Question Box, or else a truncated QB service that was dealing only with government inquiries. Generally, if the QB is sponsored, I don’t think sponsorship ought to be allowed to affect what answers come up.

Andy: You’re probably aware of the One Laptop per Child initiative, and the controversy that erupted when it encountered competition from corporate interests. Would Question Box welcome a similar for-profit competitor?

Rose: Ideally, it would be a for-profit collaborator.

Andy: Less than ideally?

Rose: Less than ideally, it would be direct competition.

Andy: If a similar for-profit initiative leapfrogged Question Box entirely, wouldn’t Question Box’s aims be served either way?

Rose: Of course. But it’s always nice to see something to completion. That’s part of the adventure.

Andy: So what are your key goals for the coming year, and how can people help?

Rose: Key goals are to get funding to drive the service to the next level, both in terms of reach and sophistication. Help is welcome across the board – engineers, programmers, project managers, researchers, interns – they are all going to be needed in spades, and actually could be useful even now. We also have a PayPal “Donate Now” button on our website, www.questionbox.org

Yes. He can.

Based on the amazing Obama action figures by Gamu Toys.

Another bloody water? Yep.

I’ve been seeing these in a few eateries around Sydney lately. Trumpeting yourself as one of a crowd is an interesting tactic, and just cheeky enough to catch my attention. Continuing the theme, the no-frills bottle comes wrapped in a blurb full of no-holds-barred Australianisms:

Since we unceremoniously (some say rudely) barged our way into the overcrowded bottled water market with a good-looking bottle, a smartarse name and a devil may care attitude it has come to our attention that our competitors don’t like us*. They think we are taking the piss. That we mock the overly flowery, exaggerated language and the poorly drawn waterfalls and diagrams of volcanos on their labels.  They think that we are not taking the serious aquatic science of bottled water…well seriously.

So to quash any future smear campaign and rumour mongering they may come up with, we’re going to set the record straight right here. Smart Alec name – yes. Just another water – no.

First up our water is bloody good. Better than most. It comes from a spring, high in the Victorian Alps, which is a bloody long drive from civilisation (see: pollution). The only farms in the area are organic which means no nasty pesticides or any of those other evil poisons end up in the water. In fact we deal with the rampant blackberry problem by setting our deer on them. It’s a tough gig for the deer but they seem to like it. And while we’re blowing our own trumpet independent Government approved laboratories have done tests and they reckon it’s lower in sodium than all other major brands on the Australian market. Did we say it tastes bloody good?

So there you go, Doubting Thomas competitors – cards on the table. Enjoy Another Bloody Water, everyone. And then when you’re done with that enjoy another Another Bloody Water. And so on.

* We don’t actually know if our competitors don’t like us. But being ‘competitors’ we’re pretty sure they don’t.

This epic spiel interests me for two reasons. First, they really go all-out on the colloquial speech. This seems like a daring tactic for a “stylish” product given our national propensity for cultural cringe, but I guess the ice was broken by the name.

Second, after lampooning the ridiculous farce of bottled water they turn around and say the clever name’s just a joke – in fact they actually-really-truly are different (and better of course). That’s like going out on a limb in a climbing harness!

Marketers, listen. If you want to reach us with clever self-awareness then stick to your guns. Don’t double-talk, don’t hedge your bets. Commit to the gambit. Show us real honesty and we will trust you.

Interestingly, the company has a decent blog, a MySpace page and Facebook group. I’ll be keen to see how this strategy unfolds.

An average day on the streets of Shibuya.

Hey people, I have an announcement!

I’ll be moving to Japan in March for a working holiday. Not certain what I’ll be doing there or for how long, but I’ve been itching for adventure and Tokyo seems like just the ticket.

So what does this mean for you? Well, expect a lot of new posts where I gape and jape in patronizing infatuation. So I guess it’s business as usual, except from Japan.

I’m not expecting massive culture shock – I lived in Mie prefecture for a year on a Rotary exchange. But that was as a teenager and I am, nominally, a Big Boy now. I know things will be different.

So, to celebrate the flavour this blog will inevitably osmose from its new HQ I’ve gotten permission from the guys at eBoy to use some of their amazing pixel art on the site. This piece is called Tokyo.

They've come along way since Spacemen and Pirates...

At first glance it’s temping to chalk this one up to Rule 34, but that doesn’t really do justice to the concept and its brilliant execution. Kudos to the (pixel?) artist who built the…models, and photographer Jean-Yves Lemoigne for blurring the line between the real and hyper-real, possibly making a statement about censorship and/or objectification, and certainly making my day.

Source: ViaComIT via Gizmodo

A great video that highlights the revolutionary ‘quickening’ of culture and technology. Some of its mind-blowing facts and extrapolations:

• There are 200 million registered users on MySpace. If MySpace were a country, it would be the fifth largest in the world.
• 1 out of 8 couples married in the U.S. last year met online.
• The first commercial SMS message was sent in December 1992. Today, the number of text messages sent and received every day exceeds the total population of the planet.
• The number of internet devices in 1984 was 100. Today, it’s 1,000,000,000.
• It took radio 38 years to reach an audience of 50 million. Television reached the same number of people in 13 years. Internet in 4. The iPod in 3. Facebook in 2.

On September 9, 1990 the following letter was published in the “Ask Marilyn” column of an American magazine called Parade:

Suppose you’re on a game show, and you’re given the choice of three doors. Behind one door is a car, the others, goats. You pick a door, say #1, and the host, who knows what’s behind the doors, opens another door, say #3, which has a goat. He says to you: ‘Do you want to pick door #2?’ Is it to your advantage to switch your choice of doors?  —Craig F. Whitaker, Maryland

If you’re like me, you couldn’t read this question without pausing and pondering the answer on your own. The situation sounds familiar – I have a vague memory of watching a similar conundrum on Australian TV in the ’80s. Three doors, a prize, and a gloating authority figure offering ambiguous encouragement. The dramatic climax of a show where beaming Guy Smiley host transforms into dark manipulator, toying with the contestant’s dreams in the name of entertainment.

If they’re your dreams you must know the game is rigged, that the host is out to get you. A matador to your bullish goal, twirling and goading on his abstract perch of perfect information. But what if it wasn’t up to him? What if, no matter which door you picked first, he must show you a goat behind another door, then offer to let you switch?

As it happens, this was a question that Marilyn vos Savant was able to answer, in a reply that sparked thousands of angry letters from readers of all stripes. Discarding the host’s motivations by forcing him to offer the switch allows us to boil the question down to one of simple (though counter-intuitive) probability. In this form it is commonly known as the Monty Hall problem, named after the host of a long-running game show called Let’s Make a Deal.

The answer? You switch!

Although it seems at first that switching might give you even odds at best, the truth is that it would always give you a 2/3 chance of taking the prize. If you don’t switch you’ll be stuck with a 1/3 chance, which is exactly the same as you had before any doors were opened. To illustrate, let’s say there are three doors – A (with fabulous prize), B (with goat), and C (with goat). If you can trust me here, and always agree to switch, then this can play out in three ways…

1. You pick door A (prize). Monty opens door B or C to show a goat. You switch to the other door, which is also a goat. FAIL.
2. You pick door B (goat). Monty opens door C to show a goat. You switch to door A, which holds the prize. WIN!
3. You pick door C (goat). Monty opens door B to show a goat. You switch to door A, which holds the prize. WIN!

See if you play it like this, then the only way you can lose is if you pick the prize door to begin with. So would you have stayed? Don’t worry, we’re not alone. Many of the letters Parade received on the topic were apparently from professional mathematicians and scientists. Some of these challenged her assumption on the ‘always offer‘ behaviour of the host, but many others simply chastised her for faulty probability. Here’s an example from a Virginian professor of mathematics:

You blew it! (…) Let me explain: If one door is shown to be a loser, that information changes the probability of either remaining choice – neither of which has any reason to be more likely – to 1/2. As a professional mathematician, I’m very concerned with the general public’s lack of mathematical skills. Please help by confessing your error and, in the future, being more careful.

To his credit, this gentleman wrote back later to apologize and retract his complaint, citing “intense professional embarrassment”. An earlier version of this problem had been analyzed in 1959 by Scientific American columnist Martin Gardner, who concluded that ”in no other branch of mathematics is it so easy for experts to blunder as in probability theory.”

While ambling in the city recently I was struck with a sudden craving for Delicious Cake. This isn’t a feeling that hits me often – more frequently my sweet tooth will ache for a muffin, a donut, or a custard tart. But I digress. On this day it wanted some cake and, well, who am I to argue?

The confection in question.

In a shopfront on George Street I spotted this little number covered in cocoa, with crusty sides and chocolate frills. So I read the sign, and was paralyzed by an unforeseen internal monologue…

• Slice: $3.60
• 8 Inches: $36.00
• Full Month: $20.00
  

Now slices I understand. A fraction of the cake, made by cutting in in half, then those halves in half, then those quarters in half, and so on. Slices are produced in powers of two. Easy!

So, inches, huh? Okay. Not metric, but we can work with that. Eight inches must be the diameter of the cake. Yeah that makes sense. So the whole cake is the price of…ten slices? Okay, that’s a nice round figure but it’s not a power of two. How do they cut the cake into ten slices? A cake-cutting robot? No, that’s not really very clever Andy, make sure that doesn’t end up in the blog post.

Full Month. What? They’re introducing a factor of time now? Hang on. Maybe a full month means a full cake. It’s baker’s jargon! Let’s see, 8 times about 3 makes about 20 dollars. No. Yes! No. Then what’s 8 Inches?

And so I stood there at the window, frozen in place by this puzzle of pastry. Until I remembered the fact that I don’t actually like Tiramisu. Now don’t get me wrong here – coffee is great! Cake is great! Mixing them is great! But pre-mixing them just doesn’t work for me. Now flustered, I had lost my appetite…

Epilogue. This enigmatic encounter haunted me long enough to research the facts, like a legitimate writer might have pretended to do in days of yore.  So gentle readers, let the record show that Tiramisu is actually a recent invention of dubious origin, and furthermore I have it on good authority that this particular specimen is Not Delicious.

Full Month seems to have referred to a Chinese custom. Apparently, when a baby is born it is traditional for friends and relatives to give the parents a small gift of money. When that baby turns one month old its parents then return the favour with a small box of cake.

8 Inches? Still no idea. It’s a mystery I can live with for now…

UPDATE: Mystery solved! See comment from Sara.