The Professor's Notes

Perhaps you have seen the Prudential advertisement that shows people placing dots on a chart showing the oldest person they know.  Prudential uses this, in comparison to the line drawn on the chart with the retirement age, to show a large difference between the that mark (when people retire) and the large number of people that know old people.  The intent of the message seems to get people to realize that there is a large difference from when you retire and when you will die.

A Psychology professor, Daniel Gilbert, is behind the study and, according to Prudential’s comments on their YouTube posting, are saying that t”Our real-life experiment revealed a real-life challenge: Helping Americans prepare for a longer retirement.”

What does the “average” show?

Take a look at the graphic.  Visually you can see what implies a “normal” or “bell curve” distribution. The average here seems to be in the mid-90s. So what does the ‘average’ value here show?  What are you led to see is that the average age when people die is far beyond the age of retirement.  But that isn’t the question that was asked.  The curve is showing the average of the OLDEST PERSON these people say they know.  Obviously, if someone dies at a young age, then they are eliminated from consideration for the “oldest person” we know.

So what is the average life-expectancy?  Is it somewhere in the 90s?  We all would like to think so. We all tend to think and act as if we won’t die.  In fact, more often than not we fail to plan for death–not life.  (When was the last time you checked to see if you have enough life insurance to protect your family in the unlikely event you die unexpectedly?)

According to the Social Security Administration (the agency with the best data, I would think) the average life expectancy for men is 83 and for women is 85.  Certainly greater than the expected age of retirement at 65 (or 67 1/2).  but far from the numbers we see on this chart.

So–do you think this use of “active graphics” is useful?  Is it misleading?  Is it unethical behavior on the part of Prudential?  And what, if any, responsibility does the Professor have for what can be seen as a misleading use of graphs and charts?

Watch the video:

Contrary to what some may say (including close family relatives) the internet isn’t “all that” for solving every problem. Many seem to think that the internet (twitter) really led the way in reporting news because of access to police scanners, much “dis- and mis- information” still was circulated.  In fact, the WSJ recently posted an article “Cops to Boston Bombing Crowdsourcers: Please Don’t Try This at Home” (where the ‘hidden’ title in the browser bar is “Internet worried Boston Bombing Investigators”)

Despite what even my nephew may have thought, just because you hear something on a police scanner doesn’t make it correct even if you heard it correctly, and there is always a high likelihood that it will be “mis-heard.” During any operation (especially military and military style operations) there exists the “fog of war.” People report what they see, and they often are incorrect. Remember, eye-witnesses to events are often the least objective reporters. Police, while we would like to think are ‘trained observers’ are not immune to these problems as well. In fact, in their rush to share information with their colleagues, WHO UNDERSTAND THE NATURE OF THE NEWS SHARED, they may share wrong, or later to be found wrong, information.

People listening over the internet to the scanners often (always?) don’t understand the nature of what is shared, and repeat it as fact. One quote from someone tweeting what they were hearing was “I can say the police scanner is pretty reliable.” But at age 16, he doesn’t understand the inherent problems associated with ‘immediate” situational reporting. He hasn’t been there–and yet he reported everything he heard as “fact” because it was the cops. He of course also shared it in “all caps” which (as my daughter pointed out, is shouting — see and re-read my use of caps above.)

BOTTOM LINE: Professionals, with extensive training in their fields, who have developed an intuition born through repetition and education, remain the best suited for dealing with their disciplines and ultimately making a difference. This is true regardless of whether it is a police officer, a neurosurgeon, or even a pancreatic cancer researcher.

I will leave you with one question: Who would you want to draft the plans for a new skyscraper–a structural engineer, or someone who has “read a lot” on the internet?

TERRORISM: Used by our own government to Terrorize Our Own Citizens?

Do you wonder how the government manipulates words to make us “feel” certain ways, with the intention of manipulating the population as well?

I have to admit, in a discussion with my Brother (Christian Brady) about terrorism I was sticking to the long standing definition of terrorism that defines it based on the intent to create fear in the populace. That is the definition that most people think but I have been quite surprised (!=) to learn that the FBI and the State Department have adopted a far broader definition.

Under the FBI definition, “Domestic terrorism is the unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual based and operating entirely within the United States or Puerto Rico without foreign direction committed against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Note that there is not mention of the desire to incite or induce terror or fear. It’s simply doing something to coerce. The definition of “international terrorism” is equally broad:

“violent acts or acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or any state, or that would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States or any state. These acts appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion, or affect the conduct of a government…”

In reading this it is small wonder that people are unable to draw distinctions between Guerrilla warfare and terrorists. We hear “terrorists” and “Terrorism” and we immediately have a picture in our minds based on the portrayal in the media of rag-tag groups of ne’er do wells, hell bent on their agenda and assume they are attacking the general population. By the current definition the Viet Cong were not Guerrillas fighting in the jungles of Viet Nam, they were “terrorists.” In fact, Mao Tse Tung, the master of Guerrilla warfare was actually just another Osama Bin Laden.

But this is not the case. Remember the USS Cole? We claim it was a “terrorist” attack by a “terrorist organization” but in reality it was a targeted attack on a legitimate military target. We may have not liked the way they snuck up beside us on a boat, and that they have never “declared war” on us as a nation-state would. but that doesn’t in any way negate the decision to target a military unit.

So what happens when our government chooses to define “terrorism” so broadly? Why would they choose to do that?

First, given the “general” view that terrorism is against the population and designed to strike fear into our hearts, by constantly labeling acts and actors as “terrorists” the government leads us into that very fear. We willingly give ourselves over to the police state to protect us, because as we have seen with all the “security” measures introduced in the past week “we aren’t safe” even in our own homes. (Of course, it was the police entering all the homes in Watertown but that is a different discussion.)

Second, and most importantly, the government deflects the discussion. We immediately know that these are “irrational” actors bent on inflicting harm. We aren’t talking about the legitimacy of the claims of the combatants. We can go after them with impunity because, after all, they are “lawless” individuals and organizations. (And yet, we view them as “enemy combatants” as well. Irony? Expediency?)

We need, as a nation, to step back and evaluate how not only the media, but our own government has been controlling the message, and through that message controlling our responses. How they, in an effort to “fight terrorism” legitimize actions solely on the basis of the description of “terrorism” rather than looking at and assessing the broader policy and geo-political issues that surround these actions.

So what makes one a terrorist?

Yup, you read that right–you can learn a bit about Photoshop layers in a 5 minute video tutorial, from Puppets.  According to PetaPixel.com:

Here’s a humorous and lighthearted 5-minute video titled, “Fafa’s Photoshop Tutorial.” Created by the comedy series Glove and Boots, it’s a short and sweet introduction to using layers in Photoshop… taught by puppets. Think Sesame Street meets Scott Kelby.

Read more at http://www.petapixel.com/2012/11/24/tutorial-introduction-to-photoshop-layers-sesame-street-style/#fU7BChuxK28MMYcU.99

Has Russia found the solution to bad parking and errant parkers?  I am almost willing to give this a try! Let me explain.

Several weeks ago, during spring break, my son and I decided to go to Chic-fil-A for lunch.  We drove completely around the building finding no parking spaces when, at the end, we saw what at first glance appeared to be a parking space.  But alas, there was a car there–straddling two spaces and DEAD CENTERED on the line between the two.  I commented (I don’t quite remember what I said, but something about “really?”) and then I looked again and realized that the DRIVER WAS STILL IN THE CAR.

Once again, I looked and thought “hey, I can actually squeeze in on the right there.”  So I did. I was actually inside both lines of my parking spot (although by default I had to be far closer to the line on the right.)  My son was surprised I was able to do it.  Then, as I looked to see if I could get out on my side the woman in the car (the errant parker) started gesturing at me with her fingers.  Nothing obscene, just… hand waving.  So I rolled down my window, and she did hers.  And then it began.

“You can’t park there. You are going to hit my car with your door.”

“I will try not to” I replied, then added “But if you weren’t taking up two spaces we wouldn’t have this problem.”

Her response floored me.

“Well, driving isn’t my forte’. You  are going to have to move.” Read the rest of this entry »

At Real Tech for Real People we want to make life easier for our friends that don’t live for the tech but still want tech in their lives.  One thing that is always challenging is making backup/archival/digital copies of DVDs that you have in your collection.  Perhaps you want to more simply watch your movies when traveling, or want to make your library more accessible from your home entertainment system.

Lifehacker points out that MacX and WinX DVD Ripper not only make this easier than even Handbrake, but until the end of the month it is free.

Read about it here: http://lifehacker.com/5961175/macx-dvd-ripper-pro-makes-ripping-easier-for-the-less-tech-savvy-is-free-all-month

I haven’t done a sufficient job of sharing it from here, but our Real Tech for Real People podcast has gone video!  We use the Google+ Hangout “On Air” feature to not only share our show live, but also to record it and make it available on YouTube.  We have been broadcasting since episode 115, and you can find over in my channel on YouTube.

I don’t usually mention these things, but there are two ways you can support Real Tech for Real People, and this website.  The first is through a simple donation using the link to the right.  The second is by simply using our Amazon affiliate program when making your regular Amazon purchases.  Talk about an easy, and painless, way to help out! Just by using our links when you go make your regular purchases at Amazon you support this website and Real Tech for Real People.

And now, let’s catch up with  Real Tech for Real People Episode 130!

I have heard quite often, from several sources (not the least of which is President Obama) the phrase “It’s just the right thing to do.”

We seem to all want to do the “right thing” so that line, without any further justification, appealing to our desire to do “right” seems often to carry the day. Think about that-one doesn’t need to justify their argument, but just instead point out that it is “just the right thing to do.”

This is often said, even when the intent is to stop something else. Stopping the purchase of supersized sodas? “Just the right thing to do.” Stopping people from locking their bikes to poles that aren’t bike stands? “just the right thing to do.”

And we side with that.

So let me ask–how do you respond when the argument is flipped. “It’s just the wrong thing to do.”

Why shouldn’t I lock my bike to a lightpole? “It’s just the wrong thing to do.”

Why shouldn’t we be allowed to buy supersized sodas if we want? “it’s just the wrong thing to do.”

Does this change the conversation in YOUR mind?

(PHOTO Courtesy ofLinus via Compfight on Flickr, Creative Commons license)

FastCompany recently published a very good article with recommendations on what to do (and not do) with your first hour at work.

I especially like two of them. Customer Service, and “Don’t check email.” It’s difficult, especially with email on the nightstand, waiting to be checked when I wake up.

So, here’s today’s question: Psychologically, what is the impact on you if you read the work emails when you wake up and look at your phone? Does it jumpstart your mind, thinking through the agenda ahead, or does it create a sense of urgency (or even panic) as you start realizing all that is ahead of you…

Please, share you thoughts in the comments below.

Still slowly catching up on the Real Tech podcasts (you can find all the episodes, including the most current, over at http://rtfrp.com) This is episode 111.

Show Notes:

NEWS:

AND… GOOGLE DRIVE is official.  Is it a “Wow!” or an “Uh?”

TIPS/SUGGESTIONS:

Google Searches made easier:  A couple “quick hits.”  Want to search using speech? Simply click on the microphone and talk (assuming you have a microphone).  Want to find where an image came from?  Go to the “images” tab, and copy and paste a URL into it.  OR–find out what other images your image looks like:just drag your image from your computer into the image search block.

Virtual Disks “In the Cloud” – Gladinet. Gladinet lets you map your existing cloud storage sites as if they are drives on your machine.  Now you can edit Word, Excel, or other documents right in the cloud, and not take up space on your hard disk.  Of course, you have to be connected to the internet.  Possible sites to use include Google Docs, PicasaWeb, Amazon S3, Microsoft’s Live Storage, and much much more.  The free version only connects to one, but there are other options as well.

Managing your PDFs: This one can be a real challenge.  You have hundreds (maybe thousands?) of PDFs on your computer, but do you a) know what you have, and b) know how to get to the one you want?  Enter a few choices, courtesy of this article from Digital Inspiration.  I personally prefer Mendeley (these are windows choices) because it is specifically designed for PDFs.  Even still, I would like something with a little more “intelligence” that can sort the files for me based on general content anaylsis.

PAMFAX:  A new problem these days is “How to send a fax from home, when you don’t have POTS any more?”  Well, I have settled on a solution that works for me.  Pamfax.  It’s made by the same people that make the call recorder application for Skype, “Pamela Recorder.” It’s not free, but it is affordable.

“The House approved Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act with a 248 to 168 vote today. CISPA allows internet service providers to share Internet ‘threat’ information with government agencies, including DHS and NSA, without having to protect any personally identifying data of its customers, without a court order. It effectively immunizes ISPs from privacy lawsuits for disclosing customer information, grants them anti-trust protection on colluding on cybersecurity issues and allows them to bypass privacy laws when sharing data with each other.”

PICKS:

Steve: Paper Camera for Android
Tony: Nike Fuel Band

Steve’s info: [blog] http://theprofessornotes.com [twitter] @scmprofessor

Tony’s info: [blog] http://getthenext.com [twitter] @tonypittman

Podcast: Play in new window | Download