Pitos Blog

Who would think that an august publication like the Wall Street Journal would pull something like this: I was paying for access to their online edition. I decided to cancel it. Their very rich and sophisticated web site lets me change just about anything, but there’s no mention, anywhere, including FAQ and help, on canceling.

Oh, and wait, there’s more: there is an 1-800 number to call. But guess what, they too can’t cancel. They have to forward you to someone else, and wait again, who then tries to talk you out of canceling. Geez.

Popularity: 1% [?]

I was supposed to fly from San Fransisco to Boston today. Monday (2 days ago) I got an email from JetBlue saying, more or less: “Sorry to tell you, but your flight has been canceled. Please call 1-800-xxx to make a new reservation or get a refund.” No explanation of why. I was taken aback, but I guess it happens all the time. After spending 30 minutes on hold, I was able to make new plans which had me leaving a day early (yesterday.) Back safe and sound now.

To JetBlue’s credit for the moment, they are waving all change fees and more importantly, any fare differences. From their web site it seems like the flight was canceled due to ‘weather.’ While indeed tonight at 10pm we’re supposed to be in the middle of a blizzard here in Boston, on Monday, when they canceled, the weather today was predicted to ok. I guess they have better weather forecasters than the weather channel!

Popularity: 1% [?]

That was the old slogan of Jon Stewart’s Daily Show. This morning, while I was in a meeting, my cell phone reported the following ‘breaking news’ from CNN:

“– An explosion at a Connecticut power plant near Hartford has caused “mass casualties,” authorities say.”

Pretty scary. What was it? What’s going on? Well it turns out, now, 6 hours later, that “at least 5″ people died, and 12 injured. Still a serious accident but how can CNN justify that kind of sensational report sent out on their ‘breaking news’ text message?

I was talking this weekend to someone with a lot of experience as a journalist and he said, to my surprise, that news organizations don’t even bother ‘fact checking’ stories now. Gone are the days I remember from ‘All the President’s Men‘ when every story had to be confirmed independently by one, maybe two other sources.

Popularity: 1% [?]

So I am trying to decide whether I should renew my subscription to Wall Street Journal online. I read an article hear and there in the journal probably every day but certainly not the whole paper. So I’ve been paying a little more attention to what that subscription gets me.

Here are some interesting findings:

If I go to www.wsj.com (not logged in) and click on “Apple’s iPad Changes the landscape for App makers” I get a partial article with a message that I should subscribe if I want to read the whole thing.

If I go to google and search for “Apple’s iPad Changes the landscape for App makers” I actually see the whole article!

If within that whole article, I click on the print link, lo and behold, I only get to print the first paragraph. (Of course I could print the full article myself without using the print link.)

On the other hand if I go to www.wsj.com and click on Kim Strassel’s article in the opinion section, I get the whole thing without needing to log in.

Pretty fancy. Are they over thinking it?

Popularity: 1% [?]

Stephen Wolfram is a genius. (Ok, he’s also a bit grandiose, self-promoting and arrogant, but I think he’s amazing. Kind of like I feel about Ray Kurzweil, another genius IMHO.)

Wolfram|Alpha is his latest product, and it’s a fascinating experiment. I can only imagine the work that has gone into it, both the Mathematica foundation and the data collection, cleansing and organization.  In my own experimentation with the site, I have had mixed results. It’s still growing up. I see the promise, and I am rooting for it. But for now it isn’t that useful, for me, anyway.

Wolfram has written a very long and interesting treatise on Computable Knowledge as he calls it. I won’t try to excerpt or summarize it. For people interested in mathematics and computation, or in Stephen Wolfram himself, it’s worth reading. I really enjoyed it.Technorati Tags: mathematics, stephenwolfram

Popularity: 1% [?]

I get asked from time to time to recommend ruby, rails, and other developers in the Boston area, either for full time or part time gigs. I’m developing a list of good local job resources - started so far with the help of pal Brian D:

Popularity: 6% [?]

Just came across this odd link somewhere. He’s a good and clear writer, enjoyable to read whether you agree or not: Why People Think Computers Can’t by Marvin Minsky.

Popularity: 5% [?]

Finally I found someone expressing what I have been thinking about the fracas about NBC, Jay Leno, Conan O’Brien etc. etc. And while I didn’t know then what I know now, I did eagerly tune in for the first Jay Leno @ 10:00pm show, hoping to see the payoff to all the hype that preceded that first episode. Do you remember all the promos and the hints and speculation? Then, on that first night:

“What would Jerry Seinfeld — Jay’s good buddy — do with five hours of prime time real estate? How about some TV producers, Mark Burnett or Jerry Bruckheimer or Nigel Lythgoe? You think they would have simply recycled old material or would they have used the opportunity to innovate? Jay had the chance to reinvent himself. He didn’t have to do a tired, watered-down version of The Tonight Show. He didn’t have to do what he’s always done before. He had the opening, if not the wherewithal, to break out of the mold.” (from TV Squad)

True, true. I think Jay Leno in the end is the reason why he didn’t do well at 10:00, not NBC, not Conan, not ‘life the universe an everything.” Sorry Jay - I used to be a fan.

Popularity: 5% [?]

An excellent article in the Wall Street Journal about the way the media and politicians want us to react to the recent Christmas Day attempted terrorist attack.

“No amount of statistical evidence, however, will make any difference to those who give themselves over to almost completely irrational fears. Such people, and there are apparently a lot of them in America right now, are in fact real victims of terrorism. They also make possible the current ascendancy of the politics of cowardice—the cynical exploitation of fear for political gain.” (from Paul Campos writing in the Wall Street Journal)

Bruce Schneier, as usual has a lucid and convincing commentary on the article:

“But as a nation we get to set our priorities, and decide how to spend our money. No one is suggesting we ignore the risks of terrorism — and making people feel safe is a good thing to do — but it makes no sense to focus so much effort and money on it when there are far worse risks to Americans.” (from Bruce Shneier’s blog)

He is always lucid and convincing. Here is a recent column in CNN, “Stop the Panic on air security”:

“As circular as it sounds, rare events are rare primarily because they don’t occur very often, and not because of any preventive security measures. If you want to do something that makes security sense, figure out what’s common among a bunch of rare events, and concentrate your countermeasures there.” (from Bruce Schneier, in CNN)

Popularity: 6% [?]

Ok, I am on a Frank Rich binge, but he does have one thought provoking article after another. In his column recently he wrote about The Other Plot to Wreck America:

“If they all skate away yet again by deflecting blame or mouthing pro forma mea culpas, it will be a sign that this inquiry, like so many other promises of reform since 9/15, is likely to leave Wall Street’s status quo largely intact. That’s the ticking-bomb scenario that truly imperils us all.” (from “The Other Plot to Wreck America”)

I just just finished reading the rare business/economics book (I usually skip them) called How Markets Fail. A highly readable and comprehensive review of economic theory as it evolved from Adam Smith to the present day. From the linked review in the Economist:

“For Mr Cassidy, the deeper roots of the crisis lie in the enduring appeal of an idea: that society is always best served when individuals are left to pursue their self-interest in free markets. He calls this “Utopian economics”. (from The Economist)

I suspect Mr. Cassidy would agree with Mr. Rich, above, and vice versa.

Popularity: 6% [?]