How To Spot A Psychopath

December 14, 2007

SOLD, to the drunk gentleman who thinks he's Stavros Niarchos!

Filed under: Scams, Strange Tales

I had no idea that they ran art auctions on cruise ships. This Consumerama piece (via Consumerist) on the subject would be hilarious even if it weren’t for the description of the rules under which the auctions are run as “coordinated inebriated sales hysteria”.

Transactions conducted in international waters are, you see, unlikely to be subject to the consumer protection laws of any nation. And cruise ship passengers may think they’re refined and distinguished, but no such test is actually applied before they let you on board. And then, there’s the free booze at the auctions.

Hence: Factor-of-ten markups on all sorts of old tat.

About all you can hope for is that the untrained, unlicensed “auctioneers” won’t actually know all of the standard scam techniques (another Consumerama piece, also via Consumerist).

December 13, 2007

"Disco Duck," 1

Filed under: Science, Humour, Music

Newspaper “formulae” for one thing or another have a terrible, and richly deserved, reputation.

But the formula for the Moby Quotient, whereby one may calculate “the degree to which artists besmirch their reputations when they lend their music to hawk products or companies”, would be highly amusing even if the article about it hadn’t been written by Bill Wyman.

(Regrettably, the Bill Wyman in question is this guy, not the famous metal detector fellow who once dabbled in music.)

I believe Scrooge McDuck actually did it first

Filed under: Science, Scams

This Metafilter post tipped me off to the existence of Brawndo Big Ox Canned Oxygen.

It’s pretty awesome.

(Similar products are apparently quite popular in Japan, where the educational system clearly doesn’t work as well as we’ve been told.)

The Big Ox sales spiel says “Because of increased pollution and the continued destruction of our forests, you might not always be getting the oxygen you need for your active lifestyle.”

This is what us professionals refer to as hogwash.

If atmospheric oxygen levels had actually significantly dropped - to, say, 15% oxygen by volume from the roughly 21% that’s normal - you’d notice. That’d make it as hard to get oxygen into your system at sea level as it currently is at 9000 feet.

Fortunately, the claim is nonsense. Normal atmospheric gases in relatively unpolluted Western nations provide just as good a breathing mixture as was around in the olden days of human history. CO2 levels have not increased (and are not projected to increase) enough to make any difference to respiration, and oxygen levels have been stable for the whole of human existence.

And, furthermore, the capacity of these low-pressure oxygen spraycans is laughably small.

The biggest can Big Ox sells is specified as 4.4 grams of gas. That’ll cost you $US124.99 for a 12-pack.

At sea level and 25 degrees Celsius, 24.8 litres of oxygen weighs 32 grams. So 4.4 grams of it (assuming the can weight specification is 100% O2 and they’re not counting the 11% of other gases they say are in there) will be about 3.4 litres.

A normal breath is about one litre. When you’re breathing hard because you’re the kind of Xtreme Super Athlete who needs to buy air in a can, you could easily be moving more than two litres per breath.

So one of these $US10.42 cans will give you enough oxygen for four shallow breaths, or less than two deep ones. Maybe only one.

You could make the can last a lot longer by just sniffing it like a whiteboard marker from time to time, but the effect would of course approach zero as the can life approached… a few minutes.

Proper high-pressure medical oxygen cylinders, in contrast, can actually provide enough oxygen to seriously supplement someone’s breathing for at least half an hour, even for the little ones that only weigh about a kilo in total. You could buy $75 medical cylinders and throw them away after using them, not even bothering to get refills, and still be paying a thirtieth as much as this stupid Big Ox stuff costs. Buy bigger cylinders and get refills and the price difference becomes a factor of several hundred, at the very least.

Bottled water is moronic and wasteful, but at least a litre of stupid water from Fiji is just as good as a litre of water from the tap. A case of Perrier could save your life if you were stranded in the outback.

A case of Big Ox, in contrast, will make about as much difference to the life of an athlete, clubgoer or person stuck on a frozen airless planet as a teaspoon of water would to someone lost in the desert.

December 12, 2007

Amphibious elephants and red spinel embargoes

Filed under: Nerdery, Games, Strange Tales

Last year, I briefly mentioned the strange but surprisingly compelling game Dwarf Fortress.

Here’s a most excellent archived version of a Something Awful thread about a relay of people playing the game.

By the time it got to StarkRavingMad’s managerial tenure, I injured myself laughing.

December 10, 2007

IT conspiracy theory of the week

Filed under: Scams

When I originally wrote, and then republished on Dan’s Data, my Ground Zero column about hard drives wearing out, I was puzzled by something.

The famous Google study (PDF) of a large population of hard drives found, oddly, that the Self-Monitoring, Analysis, and Reporting Technology (not dreadfully helpfully abbreviated “S.M.A.R.T.”) that’s built into all modern hard drives was pretty much useless for its intended purpose. It just doesn’t often tell you when a drive is on the way out and should be replaced.

Any drive that’s been in service for a couple of years will have a couple of S.M.A.R.T. warning flags thanks to the basic hour counters built into the standard. Those warnings, by themselves, don’t mean much at all. But despite those largely useless warnings that all older drives have, 36% of the drives that failed in the Google study had no warnings at all!

Technically, S.M.A.R.T. should work much better than this. The drive controller board knows when it has to repeatedly retry reads or writes, for instance; that’s the most basic kind of ominous error. S.M.A.R.T. is just a standardised interface to allow drives to tell monitoring software how often stuff like that is happening.

And yet, very often, no such report happens.

S.M.A.R.T. monitoring isn’t completely useless; a drive that actually does report any of the more serious S.M.A.R.T. problems should indeed be replaced. So you should still run some S.M.A.R.T. monitoring utility or other.

But, usually, a drive with serious S.M.A.R.T. errors is a drive that you’re already carrying out to the shooting range. By the time the monitoring software reports an error, you’ve already lost data.

I didn’t know why this was.

Now, however, I’ve got a clue, and I’ve added a piece to the Ground Zero column to mention it.

This Slashdot comment led me to this Usenet post from (someone who says he is) a former Seagate engineer. He alleges that the hard drive manufacturers’ marketing departments just overruled the engineers and made them, in essence, secretly turn off S.M.A.R.T.’s early warning features, to make the drives look more reliable.

Until those drives failed without warning, of course.

But until that happened, they looked super-reliable!

I don’t know whether this is actually true, but it sure does fit the evidence.

Great work, marketroids!

Regular readers may have noticed a certain animosity, on my part, towards the hard-working graduates of the world’s many fine advertising and marketing schools.

Damn straight.

December 9, 2007

They tested the wrong guy

Filed under: Science, Scams

Fortunately, I found out about the “Beat the Lie Detector” secondary story in the most recent episode of MythBusters before I watched it. So I knew to fast-forward through the lie detector story and just watch the other one.

This was entirely for the sake of my health. There’s no way I could watch someone claiming that polygraphs are “80% to about 99% accurate”, and then see a screen shot of software saying “Probability of Deception is Greater Than .99″, without dangerously elevating my own metabolic markers.

(But yes, I’ve skimmed through the lie detector story now, just to make sure the complaints are valid. They are.)

The icing on the cake is the fact that the person making the “80 to 99%” claim, and later administering the polygraph tests, was “Doctor” Michael Martin. Who, apparently, bought his doctorate from a diploma mill.

You certainly don’t need university qualifications to be knowledgeable about a subject, but fake degrees are anti-qualifications. Nobody who bought a diploma to make themselves look qualified in an area should be believed about anything, until they say they’re sorry and take the unearned honorifics off their business card.

In reality, it is arguable that the polygraph is not entirely useless. (This may set some sort of record for damning with faint praise.)

The polygraph looks especially good if you, unfairly, count the cases in which it’s used merely as an intimidation device to trick a guilty person into confessing. Wen Ho Lee, for instance, passed his polygraph test with flying colours - but that was no problem for the Feds, who just said he’d failed. It’s like police interrogators telling a suspect that their buddy has already confessed, when no such thing has actually happened.

Contrary to not-a-real-doctor Michael Martin’s statement, the polygraph’s history is one big losing streak. Nobody’s ever actually been able to demonstrate, in proper controlled tests, that the darn thing is actually worth using. Not that many governments or corporations seem to listen when the National Academies of Science tell them as much.

The NAS actually concluded that, although the polygraph is the best lie-detection device created so far, it’s still worse than useless, thanks to its high false-positive rate. The essential randomness of the polygraphic process means that although it certainly is possible to “beat” a polygraph test, there are no guarantees; no matter how innocent you look (because you know the tricks, or because you really are innocent), the polygraph operator may still decide you’re guilty.

The popular conception that a polygraph actually does “detect lies” in any straightforward sense is entirely wrong. An honest TV show should make this clear, and not give air time to someone who proudly states the opposite, whether or not that person has valid qualifications.

As psycho-quackery goes, the polygraph is a long way behind the real horror stories (like the lobotomy craze, for instance). But it still very royally deserves an “anti” Web site.

MythBusters genuinely does make an effort to get things right, which makes them almost unique in the “reality TV” field, and quite unlike certain other shows in their own niche.

This time, though, they appear to have dropped the ball very seriously indeed.

This isn’t just a procedural error, oversimplification or scientific mistake on the level of getting the shape of a raindrop or the principles of operation of a wing wrong. It’s a big ol’ slab of prime-time bullshit.

December 6, 2007

Rivalrous and commercioganic for Christ Ma'x!

Filed under: Spam, Language, Humour

I get a lot of commercial spam from Chinese manufacturers who’re under the impression that I’m a “reseller” of just about anything I’ve ever reviewed. And then some.

These e-mails are usually not very literate, but sometimes they break through into unintentional poetry.

I just got two copies of this one:

From: “RISING TRADING CO”
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2007 12:45:22 -0800
To: <cs@110220volts.com> [I presume my address was way down in the BCCs somewhere]
Subject: Christ Ma’x Promotion MP4

Dear Friend,

How are you doing? I hope that everything is good!
Are you searching the rivalrous and commercioganic products? Please have a look our this new model mp4 player, it has some rivalrous features in market:
1 : 1.8″ TFT display + card reader function .
2 : Built in outside speaker
3 : Built in RF function(optional).
4 : With the good handle housing which use the flash metal facture.
Its picture and details information is as below,please reference:

[A picture of a Keepin’ It Real Fake version of an iPod Nano was meant to be included here - but I had to dig the file out of my embedded directory and rename it to be able to see what the heck it was. It was originally called “ui=1&amp;attid=0.1&amp;disp=emb&amp;view=att&amp;th=1168aff0f2e8de23″.]

Main Function and features:

* Exquisite & fashionable flash metal and thin design;
* 1.8″ TFT screen, 260K TRUE color display;
* Built-in FM radio & With FM recording function (optional) ;
* RF(Radio Frequency) transmit function ,the sigBnal can be accepted by your car FM, etc.(optional)
* Built-in outside speaker (optional);
* Support card reader function;
* Support DRM(digital right management)(optional).
* Built-in lithium battery .
* Capacity supported: 128MB to 4GB;
* Supports MP3, MP4, WMA, WAV, etc;
* Supports TXT electronic text reading ;
* Supports WAV recorder format;
* 7 EQ modes: moral , rock, pop, classic, soft, jazz, bass;
* Supports ID3 synchronous lyrics display;
* Support Multi-languages.(more than 20 kinds).

It went on, but that’s the end of the funny stuff.

What do you imagine “moral” EQ does? I wasn’t aware that you could make NWA sound like Perry Como just by changing a frequency response curve.

See-through aviation

Filed under: Hacks, Nerdery, Toys

After I saw this episode of Boing Boing TV…

…I of course had to check out Carl Rankin’s Web site.

Wherein is prominently displayed The Mama Bear…

…”the largest radio-controlled plane constructed from plastic-wrap, drinking straws and tape ever built”.

Super-light spindly radio controlled planes are not new. Gossamer concoctions of balsa, carbon fibre and Mylar film have been buzzing peacefully around in high-school halls for ages, and they’re now even leaking into the commercial market.

Those indomitable little foam living-room planes and twin-motor helicopters (the original Picoo Z and its numerous, often inferior, knock-offs) are cheaper even than a plane made from take-out containers. But they’re not actually very controllable - you can only kind of suggest where you’d like them to go, after which luck takes over.

Carl Rankin’s creations, in contrast, are proper controllable aircraft made on a near-zero budget for everything except the electronics.

December 5, 2007

Humankind's Endless Quest for a Substitute Plugpack

Filed under: Electricity

I’ve been asked variations of this question often enough that I thought I’d give it its very own blog post. I hope it’s suitably grateful.

I have a Canon Powershot A95, a wonderful little digicam - smart enough that I can take decent pictures with it, cheap enough that I can afford it, small enough I can carry it everywhere. Moreover, I just found out I can actually remote-control it with gphoto2. Huge vistas of time-lapse photography opened up before me. Only, it’s hard to take a 7-hour time-lapse on one set of AAs.

Canon sells the “ACK600“, an AC power adapter rated at 4.3 VDC and 1.5 A; but they sell it for $50.

On the other hand, just around the corner is a junk shop with a big cardboard box full of wall warts that have become separated from their widgets. Last time I went the guy sold me 5 for $4. Am I safe (assuming I get the polarity right) feeding my camera from a wall-wart rated at 4.3 VDC and 1.5 A? Or is the ACK600 especially well-regulated or something? Is the ACK600 likely to be supplying 4.3 VDC exactly, or something higher? Am I going to damage my camera if I feed it 4.3 VDC from my lab power supply?

Anne

I would not be surprised if none of the plugpacks in the junk shop’s box are suitable for powering your camera. But it shouldn’t be difficult to power the camera from some other plugpack.

(Note: This is another of my famous “all care, no responsibility” answers. No smoking wrecks which once were cameras will be replaced by the management.)

The great danger of old plugpacks is that they may be unregulated. A regulated power supply will (to a first approximation) always output its rated voltage(s). This means it’s fine to plug a big “12V 10A regulated” power supply into a little “12V 75mA” device; a regulated power supply may behave oddly if it’s extremely lightly loaded, but that’s very seldom a problem.

An unregulated plugpack, on the other hand, will only output its rated voltage when it’s fully loaded. If it’s completely unloaded, it’ll deliver precisely root-two (1.414…) times its rated voltage.

If an old heavyweight linear plugpack (as opposed to the modern lightweight switchmode type, which are almost always regulated and usually accept a range of input mains voltages) isn’t specifically labelled “REGULATED”, you should assume that it isn’t.

(The other trap waiting for you in the old-plugpack box, apart from breaking out the multimeter to make sure which output wire is the positive, is power supplies that have no positive output wire. Some plugpacks output alternating current, instead of the direct current that most small devices expect. An AC power supply for an old modem or something may have voltage and current specs that look fine, but if you plug it into a DC-expecting device and that device doesn’t have rather robust reverse-polarity protection, a small noise and a funny smell will soon occur.)

It’s reasonable to assume that most gadgets will accept their rated input voltage plus or minus ten per cent, but lightly loaded unregulated power supplies can easily be outputting more than 1.3 times their rated voltage. That can blow stuff up.

It’s good that input a bit above or below the rated input voltage for a given device is generally fine, because the official power supplies for some devices have weird voltages. Yours is one such; “4.3VDC” is an oddball voltage that you’re almost certain to be unable to find an a box o’ power supplies. Your camera will probably run perfectly well from a 4.5V regulated plugpack, though, as long as that plugpack can deliver enough current. 1.5 amps is a bit on the high side (and the camera won’t need it most of the time - only charging the flash is likely to push it above an amp), but current ratings that high are easy enough to find in off-brand switchmode plugpacks from electronics stores these days.

And yes, a bench power supply set to the same voltage and with enough current capacity will also power your camera just fine. This sort of setup, with an inline ammeter (don’t trust the current meter on an inexpensive bench supply for more than approximate readings), can make it easy to figure out exactly what the acceptable voltage range for a given device is.

The camera may, for instance, still work but with obviously slower zoom speed at 3.7V, and it may not draw any more current (or actually draw less) at 4.8V than at 4.3V. In that case, you know you’re pretty safe with the higher voltage. If a device starts drawing more current as you raise its input voltage, it’s a good idea to stop raising the input voltage.

Even without such investigations, I’d be very surprised if you couldn’t also rig up an old-style external battery pack wired to an appropriate DC input plug. Three alkaline D cells in a holder (for 4.5V nominal, and something in the order of 12 amp-hours of capacity even at a constant half-amp drain!) would probably be fine, and give you impressive run time. I’m also about 90% sure that four 1.2V NiMH cells in series (for 4.8V nominal) would be fine, even though they’d be rather more than 1.2V per cell when freshly charged.

Getting back to old plugpacks: The final problem with them is that they can be dangerous.

Plugpacks have been built down to a price for many years, and it’s common to find a gadget that’s passed lots of electrical safety tests being powered by a very dodgy plugpack indeed. It’s not easy for a gadget importer to change the power supplies in devices that take mains input, but it’s very simple to get a device safety-certified with a top-quality plugpack, then increase profits by putting ten-cent assembled-by-peasants plugpacks in with the actual retail gadgets.

A sensible design for a plugpack should include some kind of overcurrent and overheating protection. Some have simple fuses, but those are difficult to replace if they pop; a self-resetting overcurrent and thermal circuit breaker is much better.

Those sorts of things cost the manufacturers, oh, maybe even a dollar each, though. So it’s perfectly normal to find linear plugpacks, old and new, that have no emergency cut-out features at all.

I remember one line of cheap multi-voltage one-amp plugpacks of which I bought a few on Super Clearance Special, years ago.

I ended up having to carry two of those plugpacks out into the garden, dangling them gingerly by the cable as the smoking interior made noises reminiscent of an angry rat.

The vast majority of plugpacks, even ancient ones with appallingly poor efficiency, will behave themselves perfectly well pretty much forever. If they die, they die harmlessly, with an open-circuit transformer or something.

But it’s still not a bad idea, whenever you plug in an AC adapter, to think about what might happen if that plugpack decided to catch fire while you were out of the house.

If it’s plugged into a powerboard that’s sitting on your wool carpet: Not so bad.

If it’s between a pile of old clothes and a box of tissues: Consider a change.

December 4, 2007

A link request from Spider-Man

Filed under: Spam, Scams

Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 05:28:52 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Link Exchange Request
From: webmaster@creditreportkey.com
To: [my domain-registration contact address]

Hello buddy ,

Quality sites need to link together.. don’t you agree? I can give you a
high quality content page link from my site
(http://www.creditreportkey.com). In addition both our sites are
vertically related. I am sure you are aware of content page link plays a
major role in SEO.

Kindly add my link in your content pages other than the links page.your
site is a quality site hence I need a content link from your website.

If you said yes, then I need your link text and URL to get this started.If
no,I am really sorry to have been a disturbance.I promise,this will not
repeat.

We also offer free download of xp icons in our website. I hope this will
also be useful to you.

Link Title : Credit Report Key
Link Url : http://www.creditreportkey.com/

Awaiting for your word,
Peter parker

Wow - “free download of xp icons” from a site that also offers you the never-to-be-repeated opportunity to pay money for free credit reports and bogus credit repair services?

Why would anybody in the world ever need to visit any OTHER site?!

I’ll link to nobody else, from now on!

(And don’t worry, Peter - your super-secret’s safe with me!)

And what’s the deal with the “vertically related” part, anyway? The business-jargon usage of “vertical” is supposed to mean every stage of a business from production to distribution, hence the concept of vertical integration; “vertically related” businesses would be, say, a flour factory and a bakery. The word seems to have turned into cant, though; now it just means “stuff that’s related to other stuff”. So you get ad agencies spouting things like “high bidded content in your vertical”, as if their purpose were not to actually communicate an idea but just to win a game of Scrabble.

The above missive arrived right next to this other magnificent creation:

From: Stephen <hotescortreviews@gmail.com>
To: dan@dansdata.com
Subject: I would like to exchange links with your site
Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 0:38:42 -0800

Dansdata, [I do love that personal touch!]

I visited your site today, and I enjoy the information your provide. I
run an adult site similar to yours, and I was wondering if you would
like to trade links with me? You can see my site at
“http://www.hotescortreviews.com”. I ask for this link exchange because
I feel our sites are closely related in topic, and a link exchange
would benefit us both. My website also has a page rank of 2.

If you exchange links with me, I will list you on my site. I can put
your banner/link on my directory page
here:http://www.hotescortreviews.com/HERDirectory.html, and I can put
you in a category which is related to your site. Our site is gaining
more visitors by the week, and getting your link on my site guarantees
you future traffic and customers, which increases your bottom line.

Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. If you wish
to add my link, you can add the HTML code below to your site:

[link code redacted]

If you would prefer to exchange banners, you can find my banner on this
page:http://www.hotescortreviews.com/Links.html. You can just right
click on it and download.

Best regards,

Stephen

Newer Posts Older Posts

Get your free blog up and running in minutes with Blogsome