antipaucity

fighting the lack of good ideas

authority issues online

Ars Technica had an article recently [arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20061020-8041.html] discussing the prevalent issue of plagiarism amongst students, especially those in college. And a question was raised concerning authority in electronic resources. This is an issue I have had to deal with in the past, though I have found it somewhat amusing to hear teachers discuss authority in documentation – because I grew up just enough before the electronic era to think first in terms of paper and bound materials and how to judge their quality.

The prime example teachers use is that you can’t quote the encyclopedia as a scholarly source – it’s merely a handy compendium of scads of information, but is not, in and of itself, scholarly. The real scholarly sources are found in places like the Association for Computing Machinery‘s Communications, or the American Psychological Association‘s journals. Publishings that take a great deal of time to verify that not only are the materials published of good quality, but that articles discussing research are properly cited and documented.

I had a paper to write several years ago on comparing AMD’s x86-64 architecture and Intel’s IA32 architecture for the companies’ CPUs. Sources like Tom’s Hardware Guide were helpful to see real-world comparisons between the competing products, but the true sources of authority on the products were AMD and Intel themselves. I printed large chunks of the manufacturer’s technical documentation to backup conclusions I made in my paper.

Similarly, citing a post-graduate research paper on caching techniques is substantially more authoritative than citing Billy Bob’s Blog where he rambles-on about how that 64K L1 cahce on his processor is better than the 128K on yours because he’s really just a fanboy. Authoritative sources, generally found on .edu, .gov, and .org domains, though .com domains can be also, are hard to find because there is too much of a noise-to-signal ratio overall on the internet.

The biggest boon to the internet is also, perhaps, its greatest drawback: anyone – anywhere, anytime – can write anything they want on any subject; they can write on any subject even when they don’t know anything about it, or refuse to come to a rational conclusion from the available evidence. I love to hear people’s opinions a lot of the time – it’s the beauty of a free society that we can have differences of opinion. However, backing-up an opinion with data is far more impressive than just having an opinion.

I have an opinion on lots of things that I don’t necessarily share with lots of people because I can’t back-up those opinions with evidence of any kind – they’re sometimes just personal preferences without any specific reason.

However, I also have opinions on topics that I do share with lots of people because I can support my opinions and conclusions with data. Whether or not you come to the same conclusion I do is irrelevant, too – so long as I present the data to you for your consideration. In fact, some of the time I would argue that divergent conclusions can be drawn from the same data. I have, on occasion, done exactly that, too. When the available data doesn’t preclude one conclusion, or demonstrably favor one over another, I have sometimes made multiple conclusions in essays because picking one over the other wasn’t an honest treatment of the data.

I’ve strayed from my main thesis, so let me sum it up. Authority of sources isn’t assured by just one factor – author, publisher, host, length, etc – but rather by directly linking to the data used to produce the conclusions made by that source. No resource stands on its own as an authority on any topic. In order to establish credibility, any resouce must cite where their data came from – either through some kind of bibliography in the case of a paper, or experimental results, or that the resource is maintained by the people who designed and built what they’re writing about.

I wouldn’t place much faith in a rant against Ford by someone who has never driven or ridden in one since they have no data to back up their claims; though I might accept some of their claims if they were based on other people’s experiences.

The real question becomes, in my mind at least, how can authority be determined? After all, I could write some essay, link to a bunch of sources, and then others could use my paper as a scholarly source. But all of my sources could be unreliable opinions written by people who also just want to become known as authoritative sources.

I think the real means of determining authority needs to come down to the following factors: 1) is the article written in an intelligent form? 2) are the sources cited of an authoritative nature? 3) has the author written anything previously that can be considered authoritative? and 4) would someone who is a known expert in the field (perhaps a professor of the topic) agree that the source is not some crackpot?

Anyone who wishes to be taken seriously needs to be able to write in an intelligent manner. That doesn’t necessarily mean that what they write needs to be constructed only for others in the field to understand, nor does it mean that they have to express their expansive vocabulary and write in a convoluted fashion to be intelligent. Textbooks designed for 1st graders aren’t written in a complex form, but are intelligent – they speak to their audience at a level their audience can understand.

If the author has written other articles previously, it can help to read – or at least skim – his other writings to see if they’re also written in an intelligent fashion.

If the author is writing about something that someone you know has experience in (perhaps even yourself), would they agree with your conclusion that the author is worth-while to cite?

If you noticed, I skipped #2 on my list because it seems to create a recursive descent into determining the authority of the source at hand. Well, it does, but only initially. For example, if you have never read anything about security, you might start with David Kahn’s The Codebreakers. And then you’d look at the bibliography to see where he got his data from to write his book. After a cursory examination of his bibliography, and especially after reading the book, you’d have a good idea of where to look for other good authors on the topic of security. Bruce Schneier would pop up in your search. As would authors like Kevin Mitnick. Establishing authority based on cited sources is a skill that you can learn; probably you can learn it very quickly.

Learning to cite authoritative sources, and to skip those that aren’t is a time-consuming process early-on, especially for people who were never taught at a young age to use ‘real’ sources from the library, but have always relied on Google. Search engines are great tools, but like any tool, they require skill and proficiency to use well. When I write research-driven articles, I use Google a lot – but I also know how to filter my searches to get to good sources (at least, a higher probability of being good) quickly from using the tool frequently.

However, I also know when I’m hitting a brick wall and I need to go to the library to find what I need. And I’m not too proud to admit when I need help finding that elusive authority to draw from.

other drivers suck

I went to upstate NY for my fall break this past weekend. The trip up was great – until I got about 5 minutes from my parents’ house when a dumptruck driver decided he didn’t like Mazda Proteges and just changed lanes whilst I was next to him. Fortunately I-787 has fairly decent shoulders there, and I could avoid him. But what a jerk.

All through my stay in NY, and the first leg of my return to NC via NJ was good driving. But I got stuck for about 3 hours in traffic due to 4 crashes on I-81. My budgeted delays for construction of 20-30 minutes turned into just 5, but the crashes held me up for a disturbingly long time. All in all, they pushed my return time to NC to 2a Wednesday rather than about 2230 or 2300 Tuesday.

I’ve decided that other drivers need to be taken off the road. If you can’t look before changing lanes – and especially when you can’t use a turn signal, you should have your license revoked. If you do look and just miss somebody, you need better mirrors.

But the idiots who decide that watching the aftermath of a crash means that you need to slow down to 5 miles per hour, and – oh heaven forbid – not switching lanes until you’re at the crash are morons and need to be taken off the road.

Ahh. That feels better. Rant over.

ask the right question

If you’ve never read Programming Pearls by Jon Bentley, and especially chapter 1, you should. Even before finishing this post. Even if you never write a program or touch a computer.

Now that that’s out of the way, I can continue.

The biggest issue in answering any question is not the answer – it is determining what the asker actually meant when they asked you the question. I, as many other people I know, always start by answering the question I was asked. However, often as not, that was not the question they actually wanted answered. They didn’t know it wasn’t the question they wanted answered, but it wasn’t.

In Bentley’s book, he describes a programmer who needs to sort a list of approximately 10,000,000 items several times per hour on a very limited machine (it was originally written in the early 80s). After spending several minutes helping his programmer friend noodle-out a solution that might take about 2 days to write and about a minute to run each time, he twigs onto what he says he should have asked before answering his friend’s question: “what are you sorting, and why?”. Turns out his friend needed to sort a list of 7-digit numbers, with no duplicates allowed. Why? Well, that was an easy answer, too – he was working with a list of all of the assigned toll-free 800 numbers and needed to be able to ensure that any new ones beings requested and handed out weren’t already taken.

Knowing now what the end goal of the programmer’s question was, Bentley suggests a far simpler method that doesn’t even entail sorting – since the list to be sorted was known to be just 7-digit numbers, he could think about the problem as marking down in a tiny structure whether or not a given number was in use, and if it was, it wasn’t available.

Without going into the exciting computer science applications Bentley brought out (because, of course, you just read the first chapter :)), I want to emphasize how important it is to ask the correct question.

Far more times than you could ever realize, you will be asked a question that wasn’t at all what the asker intended. A common example, “do you know what time it is?” “Well, actually, I do.” I do this to people quite frequently, and not just because it’s fun to mess with their heads, but because I figure the question you ask is the one you want answered. When this turns out not to be correct, a follow-on question is asked that more accurately describes what they’re wanting to know: “would you tell me the time, please?” Ahh, there’s the difference – a question that might actually yield a useful response.

That’s a humorous, and perhaps trite example, but let me give another. A few days ago, a friend of mine taking an operating systems class in graduate school called me up for help with a program he had to write in C. Unfortunately for him, most of his undergraduate programming classes dealt with Java, and C is simply different.

His task was to write a program that would accept a sequence of typed characters, break that list up into the separate elements it contained based on whitespace, and return that list. What he asked me was to help him fix his program to do what I described, but he didn’t tell me what the program was doing, just if I could help him get around the errors he was getting when he tried running it.

Ah hah! After helping him for about 20 minutes try to fix the routine he had written, I finally remembered to ask him what his assignment was. As soon as he told me, I suggested he use a prewritten library call that exists in every C programming environment – strtok. strtok just happens to do exactly what he was describing (if you follow the instructions on how to use it) – it will break-up a string of characters based on some split character, and return the little chunks as ‘tokens’.

Another recent example was that I wanted to get a half gallon, or so, of fiberglass resin. Not fiberglass, and not the hardener that turns it into epoxy, just the resin. In popping out to my local Lowes, I thought about what I would need to ask Customer Service to find out what I wanted to know. Knowing that fiberglass resin is typically sold in conjunction with fiberglass cloth, I decided to ask if they sold fiberglass cloth. It wasn’t what I really wanted to know, but I was pretty sure it would tell me what I actually wanted to know.

That took some effort on my part, like knowing the complementing products to what I wanted, but was worth the effort because it got me what I wanted to know, that yes, in fact, Lowes sells fiberglass resin.

Asking the correct question is always worth your time and effort. Instead of spending 20 minutes debugging my friend’s program, I could have just spent 2 pointing him at the right library. Admittedly, asking the right question is not always easy, and it may only be possible to ask the right question after asking several not-so-right questions. But getting to the actual nugget that you need to know to help someone, or that will give you back the result that you need is worth it. Every time.

never apologize for being right

Pope Benedict XVI recently made some ‘anti-Islamic’ comments in an academic conference that has gotten the Islamic world in an uproar (and has actually proved what he said to be correct). It has also gotten the politically correct crowd leveling some pretty harsh words against the pontiff.

I do not agree with several of the core beliefs of the Roman Catholic Church, but on this count Pope Benedict XVI is dead-on. And neither he nor his council in the Vatican should apologize for stating truth. Islam has historically grown through violence. While that doesn’t mean all Moslems are violent, it does mean that some are – as can be seen in terror groups in the Middle East, the ‘conversion’ at gunpoint of the Fox reporters recently, and from other current and historical persecutions of non-Moslems by Islamists.

When anyone has said something true, right, and especially when it is demonstrably so, they should never apologize. If you can’t live with reality, you need to wake up – not be apologized to.

public transit isn’t the answer

It may be a component, but it’s not the panacea many proclaim it to be.

Every means of transit I am aware of has good applications. They all get you from point A to point B – though some regulate where A & B must be.

Biking, for example, is a very cheap means of transportation: have a sandwich and some water, and you can go for miles. But it’s slow. For short distances, or where there is not much parking, biking is an ideal way to get around – as long as the weather’s ok.

One step up from the bicyle in terms of maneuverability and parkability (and speed) is the motorbike. Fast, light, and nimble, the motorcycle is another good choice for parking-limited areas and decent weather.

Unfortunately, the weather isn’t only bad when we don’t need to get some place. So we get an automobile. A roof, multiple seats, and cargo space make the auto a great transportation option. Add onto that a lack of a need to have a decent sense of balance. But, when parking is at a premium, cars, trucks, and vans can be a royal pain.

Buses start to alleviate parking issues, have somewhat more per-person space than a fully-passengered car, & travel at about car speed. But, they also follow specific road routes and times, meaning you have to want to go near where the bus does, or plan on a lot of walking.

Subways, trolleys, and other trains get a huge boost in efficiency for moving large numbers of people relatively quickly along very rigidly predefined paths. With about the same space per person as a bus, but not having to worry about traffic congestion due to separate, dedicated, train-only routes, trains are another efficient way to move a bunch of people between preselected A’s and B’s quite quickly. But rigid starts and stops don’t carry flexibility for the passengers.

Next on my list are boats. Personal boats are perhaps the most flexible in the ability to pick your route, but only work for getting around very wet areas.

Ferries and cruise ships are fundmentally no different from buses and trains in their capacity and flexibility, but do tend to be a bit slower. However, they also offer one of the few ways to get from one point of land to another separated by water.

Lastly, of course, are airplanes. Surpassing even a boat’s infinite 2-dimensional meanderings, aircraft get to meander in 3 dimensions. Small, personal planes carry the same flexibility of boats – but can traverse more-or-less over any terrain, with the caveat that there be some straight and flat stretch for them to return to ground safely.

Commercial flights, though, take the transportation benefits of buses and trains to new heights – literally. Traveling at hundreds of miles per hour in relatively straight lines, such craft can traverse the continent or the ocean in hours, not days or weeks. However, like boats and buses, they are subject to weather and traffic conditions not always stopping personal automobiles and bikes. In short, mass transit, of any type, is worth while when a large number of people need to get to roughly the same destination, and start in pre-congregated clusters. But what they gain in efficiency for the group, they lose (often badly) in flexibility for the individual. Commuter rail and bus services are a Good Thing ™ – but not when they preclude the individual’s desire or need for flexibility.

New York City is an example of a municipality that penalizes individuals. They charge for parking. They charge for bridges and tunnels. They act like they don’t want visitors – at least not if they won’t conform to their “ideal” of total reliance on the buses and subways in place.

It’s that herd mentality that frightens me. Mass transit does have an important place in modern society – as long as it’s a supplement & alternative to individual flexibility in travel and not its replacement.

stop trying to make me ‘safe’

Wired’s Autopia has a post this week on the new mandate that all vehicles come standard with a “brake-shift interlock system” to prevent deaths of children putting vehicles in gear accidentally (or on purpose) and then being stuck in a runaway car.

I can speak from personal experience that being in a vehicle with no brake-shift interlock system that gets stuck in gear and starts rolling is not pleasant. However, I can also speak from personal experience that it happened because I was given the keys to unlock our van when I was about 7. My parents rarely did things that were unsafe, as I was a relatively intelligent boy. However, the emergency brake wasn’t fully engaged, and I rolled out of our driveway, across 4 lanes of road in front of our house, jumped a curb, and across another three lanes of roadway. Fortunately, I didn’t jump the second curb, or I would have ended up 65 feet down an embankment crossways of a 55 mph highway.

But the lack of a brake-shift interlock system wasn’t to blame: I was. I’m the one that stuck it in gear even though I knew that I probably shouldn’t. And I’m the one who didn’t stick it back in gear after the fact.

Parents need to be aware of their kids. They don’t need their cars doing their jobs for them. As a driver now, I always start my car with my foot either on the brake, the clutch, or both just because it’s a good idea to make sure the car doesn’t start to roll while you’re starting it. But a brake-shift interlock system isn’t what makes me do it – it’s common sense, backed-up with a personal experience of what can happen if you don’t.

It really bugs me when the government jumps in and tries to do things for us that make it feel more like a nanny than a government. Mandating seatbelts for adults is stupid. Mandating cars have airbags is overkill. Mandating safety for underage passengers may be a good idea, though the parent/driver should be worried about the safety of their passengers anyway. Seatbelt use should be pushed onto insurance rates, not enforced by cops. Airbags are desired by most consumers, and insurance companies give discounts if you have them, so there is an incentive for them to exist even if they’re not legally required.

Treating citizens like children doesn’t make them safe, it makes them dependent. Dependents don’t do things for themselves, don’t take responsibility for their actions, and are generally not healthy for the nation as a whole. We expect children to be dependent on their parents, but our country keeps trying to make its adults dependent, too.

And it disgusts me.

airport security

This past weekend I had the, ahem, joy, to fly with firearms, and I was struck again by how stupid airport security really is. Of all the people you would think you would want to be onboard your flight, you’d think you would want someone who was competent in using a firearm – and who had one with him. But no, all firearms have to be in hard-sided lockable (and locked) cases – and must be checked.

Flying from RDU to EWR was straightforward, but the return flight was a bit more hectic. When checking my firearms in NC, the check-in lady verified I had a key for the case, then had me stuff the firearms declaration form into my case, and then happily put the case onto the conveyor belt to be checked. A simple process that only took an additional 30 seconds over the normal process of checking bags since a special form needs to be signed.

Checking in at Newark, however, was more of an ordeal than it should be. First, I told them I was flying with firearms, then they escorted me to an employees-only security area to open the case, and demonstrate to the agent that they were unloaded, then put the form inside, then seal the whole works back up. Ahh, I thought, that wasn’t too bad. Alas, that wasn’t all. Next I was escorted over to the Xray machines, and had to surrender my key to the Xray guy so he could open the case – again – and verify everything was fine, then he sealed it back up and returned my key to me.

Grrr. Ok, I understand opening the case once to demonstrate there are no bombs in it, but a second examination, and especially without my presence, did not make me feel very good about the state of affairs with ‘security’ at EWR. I was unable to verify that nothing was stolen until I got to RDU later that morning. It really would have been a simple thing for the Xray tech to take a magazine, or even one of the guns I had in the case, and I wouldn’t have known until it was far and away too late.

This really helps to exemplify the sorry state of so-called security in the US, and especially at airports. By definition, once I have passed through airport security into a ‘secure zone’, I am now no longer a security threat. But I also wasn’t a threat ahead of time, or they wouldn’t let me through (I hope at least). No, the real threat isn’t from somebody flying who wants to check their firearms. Or folks who just want to lock their bags to keep them safe. The real threat is from some jackass sitting a half-mile from the runway with a smuggled, shoulder-mount missile shooting at a plane in the pattern.

I could understand not allowing people to carry firearms in their carry-on bags if they didn’t also have a certification indicating they knew how to use them – such as a concealed carry permit. However, anyone who can demonstrate (via a government-issued certificate for example) that he/she is competent to not only own but also use a small weapon, should be allowed bring such a device with them onto the plane.

I would certainly feel more comfortable knowing that at least some of the flights I’m on would have people who knew how to handle a handgun onboard. I’d feel more comfortable knowing I was one of those people.

But most of all, I’d feel more comfortable if airport security reverted to its pre-9/11 status. The islamic wackos who hijacked planes and flew them into the World Trade Center towers, the Pentagon, and the final one that was re-hijacked and crashed into a field didn’t have to sneak any contraband through airport security. Everything they brought onboard was legit. Their crime was lying about their identities to obtain US documentation that indicated they should be here.

Outlawing pocket knives, nail clippers, knitting needles, baseball bats, and the like doesn’t improve security. Security is improved when everyone takes on personal responsibility and doesn’t let bad stuff happen. If even one person onboard any of the hijacked planes on September 11th had been carrying a weapon, or if anyone on the first three planes had grown some balls and stood up to those jackasses who hijacked the plane, we might not be now remembering 9/11 as the biggest act of terrorism in US history: we would be remembering the acts of a couple people who decided to act rather than sit idly by while their jet was flown into a skyscraper.