Ashley Madison: Stupidity Singularity Attained

A good friend of mine contacted me sometime ago; he’s a professional computer programmer with an extensive background and knowledge of many things relating to computer and people – and he spoke of the remarkable notion Ashley Madison consisted largely not of people speaking with people, but of people speaking with bots. Now the news is coming out and indeed my friend was right on the money.

I must confess; at first I chuckled at the notion – and then immediately stopped laughing. The implications were rather remarkable, not the least the tremendous legal impact for the folks at Ashley Madison who are facing a series of lawsuits that are likely going to bankrupt them – i.e., the ‘I paid to cheat with a person, not a bot!’ legal argument.

And now after the data dump(s) review(s), the details are coming out. Irony can be tough: the so-called hackers who obtained the data clearly intended to expose the folks conducting their illicit affairs (among them some thousands of emails involving federal officials and employees – the potential for blackmail is ripe).

And the jokes on everybody: it was just people talking to a bunch of robots – or ‘bots’ as they are called.

As recently reported in the recent issue of “Gizmondo” several interesting figures came out (http://gizmodo.com/ashley-madison-code-shows-more-women-and-more-bots-1727613924):

Number of Times Bots Sent People Messages on Ashley Madison:

Male: 20,269,675

Female: 1,492

So less than 1% of conversations on Ashley Madison were between people – and nobody noticed.

And not surprisingly, the number of accounts on Ashley Madison were not human either: turns out they were mostly “bots”.

Number of Bot Accounts in Ashley Madison:

Male: 43

Female: 70.529

So again, less than 1% of accounts were actually human females.

Just what is a bot?

Simply put, “bots” are software applications doing automated tasks. Typically, bots perform tasks that are both simple and structurally repetitive, at a much higher rate than would be possible for a human alone (this is the official description).

Bots are far from perfect; normally, they are irritating – a similar irritation you get when you’re speaking on the phone to an ‘automated attendant’ while you’re trying to pay your bill or get information about your mortgage account – only to find out there are no humans inhabiting the mortgage company and who keep on failing to understand what it is you want.

Bots simply repeat that they are programmed to do – such as saying the same old statements in response to any queries a user may give: ‘Hi”, ‘hello’, ‘so what brings you here’, ‘what’s your sign?’ etc., etc. A bot programmer types in what the bot is to say when and how in response to a specific set of words or phrases – and the bot goes about doing it’s thing. Ashley Madison users who logged on and started a chat with whom they assume was an attractive female looking for an affair wound up (statistically speaking) conversing with what was essentially a program pretending their were a human being.

And yet Ashley Madison users kept on paying their fees and membership costs, never noticing that they weren’t speaking with a non-human, (which makes you wonder about the quality of conversations nowadays) – and begs a question, ala “The Turing Test’.

‘The Turing Test’ was first proposed by Alan Turing, famed english mathematician who was instrumental in the creation of ENIAC and the worlds first computer designed to break the code machine named ‘Enigma’ utilized by Nazi’s in World War II. During this time, Turing mused about the nature of computers and the possibility of artificial intelligence (AI), suggesting that if one really wanted to know if a computer is indeed an AI, all one would have to do is undertake a conversation with the AI. If the human conversing with the AI doesn’t notice the difference, then arguably that computer is an AI who has attained a degree of intelligence. At this point, the computer will have (supposedly) attained ‘singularity’.

The term ‘singularity’ refers to that magical moment when a / or several computers attain true consciousness and self-awareness. Kind of like if Big Blue where to, after defeating another human at chess would spout out ‘loser!’ – and actually mean it.

For the record, I don’t agree that bots are a form of AI and that the bots at Ashley Madison attained any degree of singularity. But all of this begs several questions:

1) Is it a matter of bots / “computers” becoming smarter or humans being dumber? Given the type of conversations which took place on Ashley Madison, it would appear that bots mimicking humans are now far more prevalent than ever before and that humans programming them know all too well their audience – i.e., the stupid idiots. In that sense, perhaps the ‘singularity bar’ has been lowered, leaving one to wonder if it is the humans who need “singularity” more than computers.

2) Given the number of bots involved and how they proliferated so quickly, are these bots actually attempting to establish relationship with their human hosts? Not likely; who’d want to hang out with a bunch of idiots paying money and failing to notice the difference between a robot and an actual human?

3) How many hooks up were actually attained through the offices of Ashley Madison? Surprisingly, there were some made, but not between bots and humans. Evidently, Ashley Madison had a special bot designed to make such one-on-one connections (from the article):

“RunChatBotXmppGuarentee.service.php,” apparently designed just for interactions with customers who paid the premium $250 for a “guaranteed affair.” When I checked the code, I found Mr. Falcon was right. It appears that this bot would chat up the man, urge him to pay credits, and then pass him along to what’s called an “affiliate.” Likely the affiliate is a third-party that provides a real person for the man to chat with. It might also be connecting him to an escort service.

In other words, Ashley Madison was a front for escort services; this oughta prove interesting to a number of local and state prosecutors.

And the science doesn’t just stop there:

Earlier this year, one Ashley Madison engineer spent a couple of days mocking up a possible system for paying actual human women for engaging the men. The code calculates a ‘FemaleValue’ (percentage credited to the woman’s account ) based on ‘MaleProfit’ (amount the man pays to Ashley Madison). If the woman engages the man within 20 to 30 minutes of the time he buys credits, she’ll be credited with 5 percentage of the profit. It doesn’t appear this that this system wasn’t deployed, but it was obviously something Ashley Madison developers were thinking about.

This is known in scientific circles as “The Horniness Factor”: the harder the male appendage to the more likely they’ll pay out cold cash for, er, tension release.

4) Did Alan Turing even consider the possibility of “Bots”? Not likely – and especially not the degree to which some folk would fail to note their conversing with a bot and not actual human.

And speaking of Alan Turing, Ashley Madison made it a point to discourage gay male ‘cruising’, for the only sex options people logging onto Ashley Madison have access to are the following:

1: Attached Female Seeking Males
2: Attached Male Seeking Females
3: Single Male Seeking Attached Females
4: Single Female Seeking Attached Males
5: Attached Male Seeking Males
6: Attached Female Seeking Females

…which kind of makes one wonder why did they leave out this potentially profitable market segment? Squeamishness on the part of Ashley Madison over gay sex? Fear of drawing unwanted attention? Gee, kind of late for that. This also may suggest that the owners of Ashley Madison are dyed-in-the-wool Republicans who believe in old-fashioned traditional values: ripping off men who want to have sex with women, just as it has been done for centuries (although lesbianism is cool; makes for fun threesomes).

So, to summarize:

• Ashley Madison became a victim of their own numerous little Frankenstein monsters: the bots.
• The bots, once released, developed an entirely new degree of human inter-relationship: sex with machines. Users logging on wound up paying good money to converse with robots.
• These same humans who, owing to their lack of intelligence on the part of the users had no idea they just participated in a low-level Turing Test.

And while the bots introduced the executive staff at Ashley Madison a whole new level of legal and financial pain, they remind us once again that important lesson:

Just as individuals have to manage their urges, so too must larger entities learn to manage their bots.

Glow in the Dark Snow?

Today we {Flora and cora my sister} have created something that doesn’t exist. There are three things first is the glow in the dark snow; when you shine a special light on the snow it will glow but eventually it will no longer glow; second is red snow (and no, they did not put blood in it!) they put red food dye in it; the third one is orange snow. Who knew kids could do this?

Shadow IT and Home Streaming

Torpedoes in the water!

Several remarkable developments took place this past week that are guaranteed to rock some boats:

1) Streaming gains greater steam. HBO and Apple are near agreement in streaming HBO. The significance is substantial. Subscribers need no longer be directly subscribed to their cable / Fios provider to watch HBO. Arguably, once HBO goes than the others will follow suit, raising the number of streaming services – and with that the death knell of traditional cable / FIOS television viewing rings ever louder. After all, why pay for ‘premium’ cable / Fios service to get the channels for the shows you want to watch when you can simply pay a far smaller fee to simply stream directly. No longer will you have to subscribe to a specific channel and wait for when your show comes on when you can simply stream, pick and choose what you want when you want it?

It should also be noted that this is not only impactful for Apple TV users, but others – Roku top among them – are also going to find this development very fruitful and in turn, continue the growing collapse of traditional television viewing that has been in place now for well over 40 years since cable first started appearing in selected suburban locales.

2) Net neutrality is reinforced. The growing presence of internet streaming perhaps is why some corporate folks are not taking this development too well. Witness Verizon and Comcast’s reaction to the recent FCC ruling regarding ‘net neutrality’, where the cable providers are denied the ability to charge a higher fee for those subscribers who seek faster Internet (ostensibly to stream).

In the meantime, Comcast and Sony continue their sniping, denying PS4 users direct access to view HBO Go (http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/5/8156025/comcast-blocks-hbo-go-sony-ps4) – underscoring precisely why this is a good reason why net neutrality is critical for free enterprise and the curbing of monopolies. While Verizon argues that the FCC is harkening back to the 1930’s with their snide press release written in 1934 type, Verizon is being disingenuous (putting it politely) at best for they ignore the reality that the rules changed back during the Clinton Era and then again in 2007 to account for the reality of DSL (Digital Subscriber Lines) readily brings federal legislation up to the 21st century. With sore losers as these, we should be thankful for the FCC being proactive and progressive.

3) The Growing Presence of Shadow IT. Interestingly, it was revealed our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton allegedly used her office IT services to conduct personal business when in reality, it’s a little more complicated than that (http://www.zdnet.com/article/hillary-clinton-takes-shadow-it-mainstream/). Regardless of your partisan position regarding Ms. Clinton, what’s remarkable is the fact that her home office revealed usage of a home network – something which we’ve written about in the past here on Shockwaverider (“The Office is Dead; Long Live The Virtual Office”). What’s remarkable is that we’re seeing the growth of a phenomenon: the office as no longer being defined by any one location. Consider: what Ms. Clinton basically did was connect her home office to that of her professional office into a network ostensibly allowing her to continue her work away from the main office.

This is nothing new. To a lesser degree many executives practice shadow IT now, taking with them on the weekends home their company phones, tablets and laptops. Now, we’re seeing a new aspect of this trend: creating home networks that in turn, link to the office. This trend underscores an overlooked point: what is practiced or utilized at home inevitably influences what takes place at work. It’s widely known that the growth of iPads and iPhones in the office were largely attributed to executives having their own personal items, only to become enamored of them to the point where they would insist on utilizing the same in the office.

Now take it one step further.

With the rise of Internet streaming, more and more people are finding the need for home networks, whether they did basic such as a Roku or a series of personal laptops and desktops connected via wireless to a single Internet / web portal access point – to something ala Madame Secretary of State, a full-fledged home computer network (for the record, I do the same via a home network, utilizing a 6 terabyte RAID system. It’s really not that hard to do at all and you’ll find a lot of advantages in doing so,…).

Which is apparently what Madame Clinton found, but with the catch of mix and mis-matching: work email spilling over into non-work. It’s always best to practice safe e-mailing. As a former governmental Records Manager, we can expect to see more of these snafus coming up, so expect to see here at Shockwaverider a posting about practicing safe records management in the not so far future.

In the meantime, expect to see more torpedoes and explosions on the horizon as our world continues its evolutionary arc – but have no fear: the Shockwaverider crow’s nest is always on the lookout,…

 

 

 

 

Traditional Cable is Dead: Long Live The New Order

Traditional Cable is Dead: Long Live The New Order.

Traditional Cable is Dead: Long Live The New Order

The numbers are increasing: more and more are cutting the cord and getting away from cable / Fios.  As for me, it’s been several months that I’ve functioned without traditional cable television – and I wouldn’t want to go back.

When I first undertook this approach – dumping cable services – I did so with the intent to save money while ensuring a decent means of cheap entertainment we’ve come to expect from our TV set. Would my kids be able to enjoy the show(s) they like to watch? Would they miss out on new shows? Would I do likewise – enjoy the old, experience the new – and importantly, what potential could come of cutting the cord?

I’m happy to report that all of the above – and more – has been achieved.

First of all, my costs have dramatically dropped. I now pay half of what I was paying for earlier, and yet not only enjoy the shows that I usually indulge in, but now have even greater access to more shows that I didn’t before.

My kids also enjoy their regular shows, but now have access to new shows they weren’t aware of.

We can enjoy anything we like at any time regardless of scheduling as there is no schedule: it’s all on demand.

We now gain greater access to more educational shows, shows of interest and more importantly, tap into previously unexplored realms – such as YouTube – that previously were not readily noted.

So let’s talk about the details.

1. Costs

Traditional plans – whether you’re using cable or FIOS – cost anywhere from $90 to $170 per month, depending on what you’re using. What many folk do is get a ‘cheaper’ package in an effort to save money – limit the number of channels they can watch so as to lower monthly costs. But the providers are ready for that: I noted that whenever I shopped for traditional cable/Fios, the fees would shift about. Generally speaking and as an example, what the providers will do is charge you more fees – such as ‘set box’ monthly rental’ – whenever you try lowering your monthly costs. In my case, when I tried to negotiate for a lower monthly fee, I saved some $40 for monthly channel access, but wound up paying more – from $3 per month to $12 per month – for the set box rental! In fact, I was looking at paying $144 per year ($12 per month) for set box rental. Right,…

Also, ask for the lowest speed possible. You’d be surprised what you can do with 10/10 + upload/download speeds: don’t fall for the hype of faster being better (unless you’re a serious gamer addict and your life revolves are playing the latest and greatest online games).

And beware: sometimes what happens is the providers will play with you, offering you speeds but in the end, you can find that (by testing and logging your results over a period of time) that you’re either just reaching those speeds or are just hovering below them. In such instances, you consider keeping a log, doing regular speed tests and print out screen shots of your test results so as to bring these results to the attention of your provider and, if need be, filing a formal complaint with the FCC and the BBB (Better Business Bureau).

2. Platform

Congratulations, you’ve dumped traditional cable. So now what?

For some folk, it’s the Apple TV while for others, it’s Roku.

With Apple TV, you get access to a number of steaming services, but not nearly as varied or richly populated as Roku. Apple TV is great if you’re an Apple user (and if you are, I’d recommend it: the ability to readily link your iTunes and your MacBook / Desktop to your TV is rather cool) but Roku simply offers a whole lot more of freebies.

In that vein, it’s worthwhile to get Hulu and/or Netflix (which is available for both Apple TV and Roku). For $8 per month, Hulu is a bargain: there are literally hundreds of shows with their respective seasons that’ll entertain you and your family. Lots of choices and most of all, for the price, you simply can’t beat it. Consider comparing the cost of getting Hulu for $8 per month versus getting the same shows via traditional cable at $45 per month (just the cable / Fios service portion of your monthly bill) and do the math.

Also, you’ll find that this approach cuts back on ‘channel surfing’. No more hopping around looking for your show(s) on the multitude of channels. Log in, go to your show (you can set up Hulu to create your own programming of shows you like) and enjoy.

3. New Realms

YouTube is getting interesting. Try searching for movies or shows and chances are, they’re on YouTube. In addition, creators are getting wise to YouTube and increasingly, you can watch shows you’ll only find on YouTube (my personal favorite is “The Great War” where viewers can watch weekly updates about World War I as they happened on the week you’ve watching a hundred years ago. And this from a group of ‘amateurs’!).

It’s all changing,…

Let’s understand something: traditional channel viewing is geared to carry the shows you enjoy. Take the shows into a different medium – say, via ‘streaming’ services – and you’ll find there is little reason to remain with traditional cable / FIOS channel lineups. The providers know this. When asked as to why I was dropping my regular cable service, the cable rep asked me, “are you intending to stream?”

“Yes, I already do.”

Sigh. “Yeah, a lot of people are saying that.”

The results are getting interesting. Large entities (such as NFL and Disney to name two of the bigger ones) are already playing hard ball with such folk as Comcast. And rightfully so: for years, the providers held the upper hand, offering the only primary means of delivering quality entertainment to people’s homes and business, changing more to the studios / commercial entities and passing the costs on to you in the form of increased monthly bills while they pocketed the difference. Now that’s changing.

The fight over Internet ‘freedom’ that’s been taking place at the FCC is not so much about freedom per se, but it’s really about the providers’ bread and butter. Providers seek (among other things) to control access and charge people more money for Internet access and speed in an effort to recoup losses incurred from folk abandoning traditional channel delivery. But it’s too late: as much as they are pushing for this, the more the entertainment ‘houses – NFL and Disney to name a few – are pushing back, gradually cornering Comcast, Time/Warner, Verizon, etc. – into difficult negotiating positions. Simply put: aside from Internet access, what’s there for the providers to offer? And if they insist upon pressing home the need to limit and/or charge more for Internet access, the more they’re going to undermine themselves. After all, all it takes is one provider to buck the pack and offer more competitive fees for their customers leaving the others to scramble.

The writing’s on the wall; it’s a brave new world. The company valuation of provider’s companies are in flux and with that, unless they move fast and adjust to the changing market realities, cable / Fios TV providers going to find things challenging.

Change is good, especially if you’re the consumer. All it takes is a little research, planning and a willingness to save money to get better quality home entertainment.

Cutting The Cord, Part III

Assuming you’ve read the previous discussions on the subject of dropping traditional cable / FIOs / satellite TV, you’ve pretty much thought it through and are now seriously considering dropping out for your television / viewing enjoyment. Of course, this begs a fundamental question: which service type is truly best for your Internet needs? If you’re moving in the direction that subscribers are increasingly heading toward, you need to ask yourself: which service enables you to fully exploit what the Internet can offer you?

The answer ultimately lies with location.

Each service – satellite, cable and FIOs – offer various advantages and abilities largely based on where you live. If you live in an isolated, rural area, than you’re not likely going to get FIOs or cable and will instead find yourself relying on satellite services. In other locales you may be able to get satellite or cable, but not FIOs, owing to FIOs requiring a need to be located no further than five miles away from the nearest CO (Central Office) (a central office is one of those ubiquitous square, usually brick telephone building where all the telephone lines come in and are routed to the nationwide telephone network).

In other more urbanized areas, you may the advantage of choosing between any of the three top services – cable, FIOs and Satellite – but may also be limited as to market access (for example, Comcast cable is notorious for crushing any competition in and around it’s home base, the City of Philadelphia, while FIOs rollouts are often delayed by Verizon seeking to focus on specific locales / municipalities with likely customers as opposed to reaching out in a blanket approach).

Let’s briefly review each delivery option (in layman’s terms):

Satellite

Cool stuff and neat idea, but there are still some aspects you need to consider. Weather plays a role; if you live in a region where there’s a lot of snow, rain and impenetrable cloud cover, satellite can become problematic. In addition, there are costs (sometimes more than either FIOs or cable) associated with installation and service (along those have stated to get cheaper). With the launching of second generation satellites, satellite internet service is getting faster, but still has a ways to go.

Cable

Cable has come a long way and offers some rather competitive services and advantages, so it shouldn’t be dismissed. Service and support is (depending upon your provider) is usually a common complaint / refrain, however, and thus is something you need to consider.

Another aspect of cable is that it’s based on old technology – Token ring – (no, not as in Hobbits) function by having (for purposes of analogy) a large pipe delivering data to smaller pipes within segmented networks – just like the water department delivering water to a neighborhood, where each neighborhood is monitored and controlled by larger network services separate and apart from one another (roughly speaking).

Two primary aspects of cable service you always need to consider are as more users sign up onto a particular section / neighborhood – or ‘pipe’ – delivery can be impacted and be somewhat slower depending on time of day and who’s doing what with their computer (got a neighbor who enjoys porn? Chances are that’ll slow things down a little).

The second point is that although Token rings have vastly improved over the decades and are far more robust, security is still a potential problem as ‘pipe’ sections can be accessed and monitored by unauthorized personnel, resulting in data loss – ‘hacking’. Naturally, cable providers will deny this but that’s the inherent nature of Token rings. Also, it’s worth noting that cable providers are presently offering faster services targeted specifically for television services, and not just for Internet (despite their claims to the contrary) – and not surprisingly for it is in their interests to keep viewers fixed to the traditional service delivery models and discourage any direct / uncontrolled access to Internet / torrent viewing.

In some instances, cable services are also increasingly (and quietly) imposing user data limitations, limiting users to how much data they can access and use during the course of ‘surfing’ the Internet. Cable providers will offer cheap television, but sometimes will charge more for Internet access, encouraging users to stay with traditional services and away from direct Internet access for viewing shows and movies.

FIOS

The future is here – for some. FIOs is very cool and their service / support is generally better than cable providers; problem with FIOs is not everyone can enjoy it based on the inherent need for FIOs to function within 5 miles of the nearest CO (Central Office). That being said, despite FIOs inherent ability to more readily interface and offer secure, high speed internet for come computers, companies offering FIOS are increasingly being criticized for ‘throttling’ users seeking more bandwidth for torrent and/or sole Internet services, pushing said users into higher paying plans that are increasingly viewed as a deliberate effort to charge more to those who want to move away from standard television offerings. In some instances, FIOs will allow a user to drop their television services, but will soon find themselves being charged far more for ‘router rental’ or other costs.

TNSTAAFL: ‘There’s No Such Thing As A Free Lunch’ (kudos to Robert Heinlein)

Increasingly, more and more consumers are being hit with the reality that there’s no free lunch. Recent efforts by providers creating tiered pricing for Internet access is not an obscure development that only geeks can possibly appreciate, but increasingly regular families and the average consumer will soon find expensive. It’s not too much different than folks who have ‘Easy Pass’ access to the tool booths versus those who don’t: sure, everyone can drive on the freeway, but soon class distinction becomes obvious when you find yourself waiting in line to drop a quarter into the toll booth bucket while the other guys are zipping along past you getting the good seats at the theater or the beach.

The same goes for Internet access.

Depending on the service you’re currently using, review your monthly bill and break down the individual costs. When calling for a new plan, ask any provider the specific costs – i.e, router rental or any other special fees. Take it from me, chances are you’ll be surprised and more importantly, so will they as they’ll then respond to you a little better, given your knowledge and awareness.

It never hurts to shop around. One approach is to call your current provider and then inform them you’re thinking of switching; call the other provider and do the same. With any luck, you may get a better price (bear in mind, however, you’ll still facing factors that we’ve already discuss, primarily data limitations and potential ‘throttling’).

Revisit your viewing log, and ask yourself how badly do you really want to continue doing what you’re doing: continue paying high rates for a service that may not be giving you your money’s worth (whichever service it is).

Below is a (very) basic spreadsheet that may be of some use for you:

It may well be worth your while to spend a couple of hours one day and find yourself not only at the forefront of a growing revolution, but also at the forefront of saving yourself money.

And if you’re in doubt about this entire effort, realize that you’re not alone, for even the Big Boys are questioning the entire industry approach. Steve Wozniak, the co-investor of the Apple computer, once commented that he does not use any cable / FIOs or Satellite service for his home, but rather accesses his Internet access via his wireless phone service through a dedicated data plan; this may also be something to consider as well (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/9263919/I-dont-have-home-internet-admits-Apple-founder-Steve-Wozniak.html).

It’s your computer; don’t you think you have a say in what websites you wish to visit and which shows you want to view?

Cutting the Cord (Part II)

The numbers don’t lie: more and more folks are canceling their cable / FIOs / satellite services. As the above chart so notes (http://techgage.com/news/cord-cutting-not-slowing-down-decline-of-cable-tv-subscribers-continues/) the slide is gradually growing, particularly in light of faster internet being more readily available – a development which was also recently noted in the Wall Street Journal:

http://online.wsj.com/articles/getting-rid-of-cable-tv-the-smartest-ways-to-cut-the-cord-1405472757?mod=rss_Technology

Likewise, in response to the number of readers contacting the WSJ following publication of their article on this very subject matter, the WSJ followed up with a (rather) brief response in their blog answering just a few basic questions:

http://blogs.wsj.com/personal-technology/2014/07/18/cutting-the-cable-cord-answers-to-your-questions/

Clearly, this is a revolution in the making; a growing mainstream of folks are dropping out and tuning in through other means – and doing so doesn’t require you holding a Master’s in Computer Science or advanced technology. For additional discussion on approaches, here’s one helpful site worth reading if you’re in doubt as to which direction you should consider:

http://www.steve-oh-mg.com/streaming-television-revolution-confessions-of-a-cord-cutter/

And if you’re still in some doubt, here’s another helpful site for the novice cable cutter worth checking out:

http://www.tomsguide.com/us/cord-cutting-guide,news-17928.html

Mind you, it’s a growing market. Amazon, Roku and naturally Apple are all veying for this fast growing cable cutting market segment (for the record, I use Apple TV; just my choice) – so much so that now there’s even a growing developer’s middle market – as witnessed by this sample site:

http://skystreamx.com/cutting-cable-android-tv-box/

And lastly, concurrent with this trend is the growing realization users also have free access to digital TV stations – a fact that many are not fully aware of. In a nutshell, the FCC mandates duly licensed television stations to broadcast not only in their standard / regular VHF range, but also in a variety of upper frequency digital TV broadcast ranges. Many viewers are not aware of the fact that there’s a plethora of free TV routinely being  broadcast 24 x 7.  Below is a very helpful website worth checking out (it’s free) that’ll give you the lowdown on what digital (free) stations are readily broadcasting in your immediate area and what your options are – i.e., whether or not you could be served by an indoor or outdoor antennae, and what direction you’d need to point the antennae toward:

http://www.tvfool.com

Let’s face it: the traditional way of watching TV is changing; channel surfing is morphing into a more direct, focused effort of watching TV. Considering the numbers of channels the typical users gets through their subscriptions balanced against the cost of such services, people are fooled into thinking they’re getting their moneys worth by continuing utilizing the traditional cable / FIOs / satellite services; financial reality says otherwise. Consider: add into the equation the amount of time you spend watching each and every channel you’re paying for you’ll find that it’s a loss for the average consumer – a waste of money.  Think of it this way:

Number of channels / (divided by) Monthly cable bill x (times) Number of minutes spent on each channel

So, let’s say you have 500 channels that you’re paying $150.00 per month; this would come to a $3.30 per channel monthly cost.  Multiply this figure by the number of minutes you watch for any of the channels you watch (to do it right, do a spreadsheet and lay out all of your channel line ups, note how many minutes per month you watch each and every channel you’re paying for and total it up).

Chances are the vast majority of those channels are going to be listed as “0” minutes spent – and therein lies the inherent problem intrinsic with TV subscription services: you’re wasting your money paying for channels you’re simply not watching. Gee, it may be nice to offer you all these channels at seemingly low competitive rates, but are you going to really watch all that?

This is how the traditional cable / FIOs / satellite services work: you’re subsidizing the majority of channels by paying a premium for those select specific channels you tend to view more often; this is necessary as these select channels would likely not be able to exist without these subsidies. This is all well and good, but ask yourself: is your viewing practices offering a true balance between what you’re paying for and what you’re watching?

It all comes down to what and how you use your television.  So ask yourself: what are your viewing practices? Here’s what you do (and it’s rather easy and surprisingly revealing): do a viewing log. Mark down the following every time you turn on the tube:

the channel you’re watching;

the show you’re watching;

how long you’ve watch that show on that specific channel;

Repeat.

Do this for a month and see for yourself. Once you’ve done this ask yourself: are you getting your money’s worth from your TV subscription services?

Given how much it costs per month, you could be looking at anywhere from $1,800 to $2,400 per year you’re paying out for something you’re not really fully using.  Add up over several years and you’ll find yourself paying out serious money for something you’re not fully using.

“All The News That’s Fit To, Er, Write,…?”

“All The News That’s Fit To, Er, Write,…?”.

“All The News That’s Fit To, Er, Write,…?”

 

 

 

So by now you’ve probably heard about how the Associated Press is rolling out a new means of reporting: an automated writing system (http://www.complex.com/tech/2014/06/ap-machines):

The AP has announced that it will soon switch to an automatic version of writing and reporting for its corporate earnings stories. A computer program that will be able to take a company’s numbers and produce a 150-300-word article about it will soon be tasked with penning the quarterly corporate earnings reports. The switch will be made in part because the program is now able to take the “by the numbers” information and produce a readable format suitable for its users.

The article then went on to assure us ‘no employees will face termination’ as a result of bringing about this change. 

Now to be clear, this does not mean robots will be appearing at press conferences to ask questions, take notes and write to us stories about the events they’re covering. Rather, all this involves is the implementation of a / series of computer program(s) reviewing and writing up linguistically basic stories directly based upon mere corporate earnings reports. For the AP, what this means is that now AP can “create more than 10 times the number of earnings reports in comparison to past quarters.” Kind of like feed the computer earning reports, pull out a few adverbs and random additives and viola! A cut and dry (read: boring) news report about corporate earnings. 

But what does all this really mean?

Does this mean Skynet (via “The Terminator” movie fame) is taking over the media? Our news will soon be filtered by way of a series of electronic systems, removing the human element whereby we will only hear and read ‘good news’ as opposed to knowing and seeing how bad things really are? Can we soon expect to see messages scrolling across our television screens of “I’m sorry Dave, but you’ve seen enough porn for tonight?” Can we expect to see robots and machines inhabiting our news broadcasting services (although some may argue that’s already happening now) thus totally removing humans from the media broadcast altogether? (Cue the evil laughter: “MWAHAHAHAHHAAAAA!”).

Hardly.

But is the beginning of a greater trend, reflective of the manner by which we view and interact our world and each other. 

Understand, in many ways this is a rather bold step in a domain traditionally held as sacrosanct, safe from the realm of robots / AI (Artificial Intelligence): writing.

We are (generally) taught writing is thinking: you cannot write without some kind of thought or notion – however minimal it is. Whether one is writing about tag team wrestling or the philosophical nature of quantum mechanics, writing – even a mere grocery list – takes some thought.

Some wags would argue perhaps it’s not so much machines are getting smarter, but rather humans are getting dumber, with robots writing about things that really don’t take a whole lot of thought – but this is not an accurate way of looking at things. Consider: the necessity of corporate earning reports now as compared to what they were some 70 years ago; they didn’t exist anywhere in the form we now consider normal – nay, necessary – in today’s modern world, yet they are another vital thing done as part of our daily, modern lives. Now with this new program it’s one less thing off of our collective plates.

Look around you: what is happening as civilization becomes more and more complex, the details which matter – making sure reports are produced, there’s enough fuel calculated in a jet plane prior to flying or that the triggers on our nuclear bombs are actually locked and secure – all of these and more are getting done automatically because frankly, we got a lot on our plates already. We carry on, safe in our assumptions that all is being handled properly by machines, safe from the dreaded ‘human error’ factor. After all, the last thing we need to hear while eating our peanuts in the tourist class is the co-pilot telling the pilot somewhere over the Atlantic Ocean “I thought you figured out the fuel consumption rate!?”

But could this mean the end of writing as we know it?  Not likely, but it raises an interesting question as it relates to the Turing Test: could we tell if something we’re reading is written by a machine or by a human? In which case, does this recent innovation introduced by the Associated Press presage the end of Expository Writing 101 and the pain of attending 7:30 am college freshman writing class? (By the way, if anyone can test this specific hypotheses, please do so and contact me ASAP to share your results; I do, however, deny any responsibility). And would such a trend possibly suggest that soon associate professors teaching such courses will be replaced by robots as well? (Not likely; even robots would find the work and pay insufferable).

Rest easy, we got awhile to go before a machine written item passes the Turing Test (at least for anything not involving 7:30 am Exposition Writing 101).

Speaking as a professional researcher, however, I do note we are crossing a new threshold with regard to our automated tools: the border between the mundane and the dynamic. Consider: something considered boring and “dry” reading – say, for example, corporate earning reports – are based on dynamic and fluid events, often involving complex factors even diehard experts find baffling with unexpected results.

And this is exactly the border where the Associated Press’s new program is going to cross over. Fortunes are made and lost on such reports so we better hope that those “machines” are up to the task – and more importantly, the humans overseeing such services are making sure the correct and proper (read: accurate) adjectives and adverbs are being applied – otherwise some folk are going to find themselves flying over rough seas with no fuel. 

 

 

Cutting Loose

Humans take time to readily adapt to new technology; in same instances, several decades. Case in point: cable television.

We use new technologies in ways we’re familiar with and not always the manner in which the invention was intended. Take the American Civil War, as one example. Troops would line up in parallel rows mere feet apart just as they did during the American Revolution or Napoleonic Wars, save for one difference: the rifles they were using were far more accurate and the bullets used were heavy .45 caliber – with tremendous bloody result. It wasn’t until toward the end of the American Civil War during the siege of Richmond tactics changed to the new technology, resulting in a practice we’d later see: the deadly trench warfare of the coming World War I, 50 years later.

Cable television is no exception (Author’s Disclaimer: I have Verizon FIOs, although I’ve also utilized standard cable). We, as subscribers, use cable just as we have been using television since television’s inception. And BTW: regardless of which delivery you’re using – cable, FIOs or Dish, it’s all the same: they’re all using the same format – a large collection of channels with each service offering their respective shows and interests based on a choice of subscription rates. Want more, you pay more, but it’s merely a matter of getting more channels.

But at what point does one really get to watch all of the 400+ channels they’re paying a monthly premium to see? Even though we’re using technology that would’ve made my grandparents green with envy, the way in which we watch television hasn’t changed since our grandparents first started watching television.

Thinking this, I decided to conduct a ‘human experiment’, with me as the experiment. For the past month or so, I’ve been maintaining a log of my viewing practices, first tracking what and how I see my TV and then deliberately not using or accessing any regular cable / FIOs / Dish service.

Several key observations I noted:

1) I tend to watch specific shows – “Big Bang Theory”, “Game of Thrones”, “Breaking Bad” (when it was around), “Mythbusters” along with “Top Gear” (the English variety), etc.

2) I watch specific channels for specific reasons: the Weather Channel in the morning before I go to work; The Smithsonian Channel or the History Channel for those cool segments about historical events or learning about how those large wind turbines are maintained along with the Discovery Channel and Nicktoons for my kids.

3) I enjoy Turner Classic movies as I dig rewatching some of those old classics – “The Big Sleep”, “The Sea Wolf” or “Cool Hand Luke” just to name a few.

My conclusions? Not so surprising.

I know what I like; we all do. And in the end, we don’t really need all those other channels, save that of channel surfing.  It’s natural; we all channel surf: turn on the set and see what’s there, find something that gets our interest. Only now rather than the old 12 channel VHF selector (along with the smooth turning UHF selector) we’re using set boxes and remote controls.

Set box or the channel selector, it’s still the same concept; we’re carrying forth old habits handed down from the 1950’s into the next century.

But all that’s changing. Now, with the advent of Internet TV / access (YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, etc.) things are different.  When you consider the non-cable / FIOs / Dish variety – i.e., Apple TV, Roku, etc. – your watching habits and tendency easily transfer over, save for one very big difference: rather than remain a ‘passive’ observer doing the usual channel surf letting the TV take control of your viewing experience – and paying anywhere from $100 or more per month for the privilege, with Internet service you take far greater control and in the process became a more ‘active’ viewer, knowing what it is you’re looking to watch.

Sure, you can still “channel surf”, but now you tend to focus a little more for what you’re looking for – just as you would when checking out the Internet.

Your TV now becomes your private domain. Rather than it being a receiver for stuff randomly zapped to your head, you’re far more likely to be an active user seeking out what it is you want to view, controlling your viewing experience.

And best of all, it’s cheaper. Not just for the monthly subscriber rate, but also for a ‘per unit’ basis. Considering the premium you pay for your premium cable / FIOs / Dish services, the number of channels you’re being offered and the number of minutes / hours you spent watching those channels at a per dollar cost rate, you’re losing out on a lot of money.

‘But gee’, you say: ‘won’t I miss out on the latest and greatest shows if I cut by service?’ Not really: the time lag between what’s first appearing on major networks – HBO as but one example – and when it appears on non-cable / FIOs / Dish – is shortening. In fact, HBO now enables a user to subscribe to HBO via their Apple TV service and view HBO shows as they would through a regular cable / FIOs / Dish network.

‘But won’t I miss out on cool shows that suddenly appear? When I channel surf, I get to check out some cool shows I normally wouldn’t know about.’ This begs the question: where do people hear about the cool shows first? The answer is by word of mouth, and not via channel surfing. Cases in point: “The Big Bang Theory” and “Game of Thrones”, whose audience share grew primarily through word of mouth by way of the Internet and not so much by random individuals channel surfing.

Things are changing, and statistics bear this point out. In the past year alone, over 8 million people have dropped their cable services. It’s not a big number, but it’s growing exponentially (http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrymagid/2013/03/19/households-abandoning-cable-and-satellite-for-streaming/). With Internet TV, the action’s starting to get hot. One service to watch for is that of Amazon: now they’re getting into the act offering streaming services for a far less price than regular / standard wired delivery.

It’s remarkable to note that even the so-called industry giants see the light at the end of tunnel, thinking it’s not sunlight, but the light of an oncoming train.  Comcast – for example – has quietly been moving into the field of electric utilities, buying smaller utility companies; perhaps in anticipation of the coming upheaval (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-05-29/utilities-face-threat-from-vivint-google-comcast-at-and-t).

To be sure, it’s small, but the movement is growing. The game’s afoot and the landscape is changing; traditional TV is going the way of the dinosaurs. Your TV is no longer just a TV; it’s an informational / entertainment / presentation center.

Join the movement.

Your TV is yours for the taking.