gevron

My favorite UK COMEDY of all times is Coupling (UK version, naturally).
It is one of the best shows EVAH! Jeff FTW!
Some compare it to Friends, as it features three female actresses and three male actors. It's much smarter than any sitcom.
Coupling is cult for me.

My favorite UK COMEDY of the 1980s is Yes Minister (with sequel Yes Prime Minister). It is extremely funny, and teaches you quite a bit of politics and double-speak to boot. A must in modern-day education.
I watch the shows every couple of years.

My favorite on-the-air UK COMEDY is The IT Crowd. Hilarious geek sitcom!

My favorite UK DRAMA show is Spooks, following a fictional MI5 team (think British 24). The first couple of seasons made sense (within reason, they didn't carry hand-cuffs and guns) and was ridiculous (terrorists were environmentalists rather than extreme Islamic). Newer seasons are fun, but my suspended disbelief has been broken.

My favorite UK COOL DRAMA show is Life on Mars (Gene Hunt FTW!) and its sequel Ashes to Ashes (currently playing its second series). To avoid confusion, Life on Mars is naturally the UK version.

I doubt it would surprise anyone, but my favorite British SHOW (allow any any) of ALL TIMES is Doctor Who, with a preference to the new show from this century. Steven Moffat (who wrote Coupling) writes for the new doctor as well.

There are so many other shows, ranging from The Prisoner to Monty Python's Flying Circus, but they seem too out of date even for this listing. They have a place of honour on my DVD shelf.

What are you fav Brit shows?

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

When I read news like this, I day dream science fiction for at least 20 minutes. Sometimes I even write it down.

Scientists create glowing Monkeys!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8070252.stm
"Genetically modified primates that glow green and pass the trait on to their offspring could aid the fight against human disease."

This follows the news of the now famous, cloned, glowing cats:
http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/12/13/514602.aspx

I think my next project will involve glowing spiders so I can smite more of them, or maybe glowing mosquitoes. Maybe glowing terrorists?

More importantly, how do we name a glowing beverage?

My first thought was "glowing coke", my second was "stick light", after the glowing sticks of light. Then I said both out loud. That was fun! That now X-rated idea was dropped. :)

All this just so I can come up with the idea of a GLOWING BEER, because beer is good and inventing catch phrases is so easy. An advertiser's dream.
Example: Light up your life!

Side-tracked a bit, yes, but I can't help wondering about GLOWING HUMANS. If we all glowed at night at some point (say, because of them monkeys or mosquitoes), I feel sorry for the leper who is born with the genetic error, who won't glow. Poor kid, will probably get thrown into trash-cans at school.

Bringing it down a notch, developing a drink for clubs, which makes you glow for a few hours, would be an interesting marketing concept. :)

Bringing the whole email down to a more current subject of discussion (while staying in the realm of science fiction), it would be an interesting and scary way of causing mass extinction in animals, whether predator or the eaten.

What's your idea? Come up with one and share it with us!

Happy Shavuot, and with thanks to Eyal Brill who I day dreamed with over the phone. ;)

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

I received a link today to a video on Facebook. In it, Phillip Zimbardo (!!) of the Stanford Prison Experiment fame acts as a spokesperson of sorts for Stanford, engaging the Facebook community, talking of his ideas and asking for comments.

Fascinating. I wonder what the plan behind it is. Just for fun, or as a way of using social media to connect with people?

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

In the past few months it has become increasingly apparent to me why I like certain posts on mailing lists and forums, and avoid others.

A fellow poster on a skeptics mailing list has interesting posts. Looking at a recent post of his helped me elucidate the distinction between content and context, the point I am trying to make. In rhetorical terminology, his posts' ethos is ALL logos. No pathos. Most of the "believers" (as oposed to skeptics?) ethos is constructed of mostly just pathos, no logos.

While I respect him and try to always see the point he is highlighting, I can't help but get bored when he writes. This is not subject related, but form.

The content may be interesting, but logic and reason alone can get boring even with the most fascinating and enlightening content.

Rhetoric teaches us that while it is important to be analytical and show a logical progression in the flow between ideas, we are talking to people--not machines. To persuade people logic alone fails in most cases. Now, I am not talking of manipulation, but rather of the form in which an argument is presented, and the language used.

Context matters as much as content in my opinion. That said, I do spend time reading his posts (when I'm not busy or tired) as I believe they are worth the extra effort. I am very sensitive to context, so for example I can tell he uses most of his text to rebut the opposition's claims rather than introduce claims of his own. Being human, I read more when he introduces new arguments rather than
boringly picks apart someone else's.

On the other end, while very analytical, my writing ethos is more pathos than anything else. This means that at times I present ideas without much consideration as to why they may be true, which probably annoys him.

Isn't it great to be human, learn and grow?

Update:
This post, while sent in earnest, can easily be read as a personal attack against the guy in question.
While unintentional, by sending it in I taught myself a lesson on context far better than any I was explaining by writing. The guy was cool about it and took it in stride, realizing that if I was aiming an attack at him, he would have known it.

Of course, the funny part in retrospect is that the attack is pretty darn good. ;)

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

Two weeks ago The Economist carried a story named "There was a lawyer, an engineer and a politician..." discussing why professional paths to the top vary so much, and listing the original professions of politicians in different countries.

Unsurprising, in the US most politicians were originally lawyers. In China most politicians were originally engineers and in Africa most are generals.

There are cultural issues involved with who we want as our leaders and who our leaders want next to them. Humans prefer those similar to them (or those who speak the same "language") to work with. Then, there's nepotism, with leaders preferring those close to them to be around them at work at well (and for a lawyer, those would likely be fellow lawyers). And of course, let's not forget selection bias.

Finally, the story told of a trend (especially in Europe and the US) where professional politicians are grown rather than change careers at some point in their lives, and create their own clubs of friends yet again.

The interesting thing is to look at who breaks the patterns, and why. A few weeks ago the Economist (I think) carried a different story on the growing class problem with differences between the rich and the poor becoming more apparent, a glass ceiling of who becomes rich to begin with.

Apparently, in the States (when compared to Europe), more of the rich are "new money" who made their own fortune, rather than inherited it. It attributed this fact to the basic academic degree in the States being four years rather than three, with engineers taking courses in psychology, management and art, and the reverse. Thus learning critical skills they can use later on to move into management, etc.

Putting these two stories together draws an interesting, if not necessarily correct, picture.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

io9 posted a review of a new book "Uranium: War, Energy and the Rock That Shaped the World" by Tom Zoellner. The review is "A History of Uranium, the Rock That Nuked the World" by Andrew Liptak.

The book details the fascinating history of Uranium, although apparently from the point of view of a supporter of nuclear power, ignoring most risks and historical incidents of nuclear accidents such as the Three mile island or Chernobyl. Mr. Liptak mentions that taking that bias and inaccuracy into account, the author presents a pretty good argument for nuclear power.

Most fascinating to me was that when researchers first discovered some of the properties of Uranium, they noticed it has the ability to heal, shrinking tumors. This inspired an "health spa" craze which irradiated people. Talk about Fad of the Month pseudo-science craze!

But uranium wasn't seen as a harmful substance when first examined, although the properties of radiation were discovered early on by chemist Henry Becuquerel, when the element began to cloud his photographs, even out of the sunlight. His discoveries would attract another pair of scientists, Marie Sklodowska and Pierre Curie, who would eventually marry. They began to examine uranium and theorized that it was an element that was throwing off particles. In 1903 the two were awarded the Nobel Prize when they discovered that the radiation had the ability to heal, shrinking tumors. In light of these successes, a small industry of health spas sprang up where radium springs were located. These spas touted the healing properties of radiation. However, both Marie and Pierre Curie, after their long exposure to radiation, would perish from the very substance that they believed would heal the world.

An interesting lesson to those whose only argument is "science doesn't know everything" (science is a process of discovery, not what you replaced God with).

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

There's new Israeli research from the Ariel University Center of Samaria which claims sex-withholding manipulation is done by the weaker partner in a relationship as a persuasion technique.

The research was performed by Dr. Yaarit Bokek-Cohen and Dr. Sabina Lisiza.

The researchers believe that there's a hidden balance of power in every relationship based on varying parameters. Examples can be who is more emotionally connected to the partner and thus less powerful, or who the financial provider in the relationship is and thus more powerful. Other examples were more shallow, such as which of partners believes they are better looking or have a better possibility of finding a new partner.

Bottom line: it's the "weaker" person in a relationship who uses sex-withholding manipulation to influence and persuade their partner and win.

They questioned 192 couples on how they choose a vacation (the spot, time, etc.) as, they explain many couples make a decision related to vacationing at least once a year.

They gave a questionnaire with ranking between 1 (never) to 5 (always) on if they will use this influence technique to win going to their vacation spot choice over their partner.

Also, another "surprising" fact: Guys don't withhold sex. Obviously more research is required. :) :P
They find that only when it is the women in the subjectively weaker spot are such techniques used.

Dr. Bokek-Cohen was quoted as saying that they could have guessed the results by intuition, but the subject has not been looked into by academia before. She also said that "apparently, sex is the power source of the weak."

The information and quotes were taken from this ynet Hebrew article, which is obviously popularized and therefore take note that my information is not first-hand.

This is an interesting if obvious research, and I figured that as someone who investigates social influence and lives only five minutes away from where this research was done, I should translate the popular article I read about it into English.

I personally find that power in relationships can also be equal. But in most relationships there's indeed usually someone more powerful. I also know of situations where there's NO power, but...

I withhold judgement until I read the original. This seems like a way to balance power in a relationship more than it shows a lack of any power. I dislike looking at these types of issues with "power" terminology, but as my friend Mike Murray said on twitter:

I find the correlation between choice of strategy and "weakness" somewhat prejudiced

Quick Google-foo located previous research by Dr. Bokek-Cohen which is of interest:

Yaarit Bokek-Cohen (2007), "TELL HER SHE'S WRONG! TRIANGULATION AS A SPOUSAL INFLUENCE STRATEGY", in European Advances in Consumer Research Volume 8, eds. Stefania Borghini and Mary Ann McGrath and Cele Otnes, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 263-265.192

---

Couples were asked to state the frequency of their use of nine influence strategies in four consumption decisions. Using Family Systems Theory (Bowen, 1978, Kerr & Bowen, 1988), this paper introduces the triangulation strategy: enlisting a third person to persuade the spouse. The use of this strategy was measured using the following items: “asking his/her friend”, “asking my friend”, “asking our child/ren”, “asking his/her relative” and “asking my relative”. Findings provide statistical reliability to this strategy. Men reported a significantly greater use of triangulation strategy than did women. The longer the marriage relationship is, the lower the use of this strategy among men. The higher the educational level of the woman, the greater the use of this strategy.

This summary can be found here and the PDF document (of this older research) can be downloaded here.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

I often invest thought in what the difference between being a good communicator and being a manipulator is.

In this post I'd like to explore this difference in-depth. We begin by looking at what I find the main differences between communication and manipulation are, explore how influence differs from manipulation and how intent along with the perception of both the manipulator (attacker) and the manipulated (victim) are critical for reaching a determination. We then wrap up with another way of determining manipulation by concentrating on the effect on the manipulated person.

When I first explored this subject I encountered a problem: I became a better communicator the more I learned about how manipulation works on me. For example, becoming more aware of my environment I identified that as an Israeli, when communicating I unconsciously maintain eye contact and try to find the comfort level of the person in front of me, and adjust accordingly. Was I a manipulator if I communicated well?

This made me realize that the tools in our repertoire, or the weapons in our arsenal if you like, are the same ones when used in communication as they are in manipulation. What changes are these two aspects:

1. Our perspective on whether something is manipulative or not.
2. The actor's intent.

To illustrate this point, if I present an open front so that we create rapport faster and remember our friendship from a year ago, and as a result you open up to me faster, is it manipulation or just good communication? I personally see nothing wrong with it. However, if I manipulate you to buy a product you don't want, I see it as unethical and manipulative. Your perspective may be different than mine.

In a recent discussion of my cool, if I do say so myself, "I'm interested, but in you" blog, Mike Murray posted an opinion on the two differences as I state them (this was on the psysec (Psychology and Security) mailing list):

I would argue that the first and the second are related - the first is actually better construed as: "Our perspective on the actor's intent." The actor's true intent doesn't actually matter - for example, imagine a situation with a malicious actor where a the target does not believe in the malicious intent - they won't see the act as manipulative.

When we don't believe the actor has malicious intent, the act either doesn't register consciously at all, or the person is believed to be influential/charismatic/passionate/persuasive.

Leaving communication behind us for a moment, social psychology distinguishes between the concepts of Influence and Manipulation. Dr. Sarah Gordon recently helped me understand that difference more fully on psysec. Searching for the definitions online, I came up with these:

social influence: how an individual's behaviour is affected by others, such as conformity pressures and group dynamics.

manipulating (v): to influence or control shrewdly or deviously.
Synonyms: manipulating, manipulate, manipulated, manipulates "He manipulated public opinion in his favor", pull strings, pull wires

The world is full of input which shapes our perception, or if you like--influences. These range from invasive advertisement, through even a friend's smile, all the way to seeing the Sun coming over the horizon. One could claim (and indeed many do) that everything we do is manipulative in a fashion. An example for this is being friendly. Am I manipulating you by being friendly? I don't think so.

One way to look at this is that influences are part of the natural world, thus unavoidable, manipulation is premeditated. I like this statement, but it is incomplete when we take into consideration that there are levels as well as layers of manipulation. Emotional manipulation between family members (think spousal abuse) may not necessarily be conscious which is a key to intent under the legal definition as I understand it.

While I present a strong opinion on this subject matter "nothing is ever 100%" and "it depends" are a repeating theme in my life.
On the one hand, if the intent of a manipulator is to indeed manipulate than it is self-explanatory and defines itself as an act of manipulation. However, perception means that such an action may be viewed by some as legitimate, regardless. Even under such a seemingly clear-cut definition, we need a better indicator.

Aside to intent and perception, what differentiates communication from manipulation?

Dr. Gordon mentioned a key issue on what manipulation is about: taking away choice. From this we can extrapolate another definition of what manipulation is from a different perspective, by the effect it has on the manipulated person:

If the person being manipulated would not have acted the same way if not for this manipulation AND was not in complete control OR was not aware of what's going on, he or she is being manipulated.

Would you agree?

That's it.

Dr. Gordon mentioned on psysec that there are potentially good and decent uses for manipulation. We can explore that another time.

Further reading:
Others researched the differences between influence and manipulation before, rather than concentrate on the difference between communication in general and manipulation, like I do.

1. This blog treats manipulation as a part of the larger world of influence, and add persuasion as the second part of it.
2. Another take on the subject is from an attorney named Jim T. Priest. He looks at the dictionary definitions of the terms and for what the desired outcome of the actor is, to help his determination.
3. Yet another take on the subject, exploring from the definitions stand-point.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

Torture is a very loaded subject this day and age. "Good" and "bad" are subjective terms. Are we speaking morally? Are we speaking results-wise?

There are three core issues here. Should torture be used? Is interrogation a process of torture? How much do we know of either?

Hypothetically, I can condone torture under extreme conditions if it actually works, and then when other techniques won't bring results in time. But what conditions are extreme and how do we define the relevant variables?

We may disagree on my statement above but we won't likely disagree that outside of anecdotal cases, torture is a bad idea, period. It definitely shouldn't the default technique.

The real shame of it is that there is no clear-cut research either way to state whether torture is helpful or harmful when used in interrogations.
There NEVER will be clear-cut research, but some research would be nice to stop cheap demagogy on both sides of the debate.

Torture is a matter of ethics, morality and law. We should stick to those. I'd go as far as dismiss the use of torture based on them alone. However, if we want to intelligently discuss it being useful or harmful in the technical (psychological) sense of getting information, we need to first meet a burden of proof:

1. Which opinion on torture is true. We don't have that data right now.
2. That other techniques are not just as good if not by far, better.

Language is often used in hyperbole, trying to hide actual meaning. Murder, rape, etc. are examples of loaded language much like "interrogation" has now become. Torture is not necessarily the right word to use and the line between interrogation and torture needs to be clearer. To simplify a complicated subject, interrogation is by questioning, torture is physical coercion.

By way of imperfect (and cold) analogy I can imagine extreme cases where killing an individual can be anywhere between "useful" to "necessary". Useful I'd kick out the door and necessary I'd look in the eye and likely kick out the door anyway due to logic, not to mention possibly being emotionally incapable to follow through. But should killing be the default route to solve our problems? No. Neither should torture.

Does the cost justify the means? Is the Star Trek saying of "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" (or the one) relevant here? Perhaps.

As it stands today this debate is indeed one of morality, ethics and law. We can not argue effectiveness or lack there-of without data to back it up.

More in-depth, here are purely technical questions I'd like answered:

1. Is torture effective? How so?
2. Does torture hurt interrogations? How so?
3. What interrogation techniques work, and why?
4. Are non-coercive interrogation techniques less, more or as efficient as torture?

The rest (such as a ban on torture, possible usage and timing) is left to ethics and philosophy, law and policy, and the individual person and extreme circumstances which may affect him or her.

Isn't public debate great? Especially on public policy?
There's also the issue of diplomacy here, but I am not an expert.

We must distinguish interrogation by means of questioning from torture.

For more information, Google is helpful. I personally really like the work done on the document "Educing Information" from 2006, it defines the subject matter well:

Educing Information Interrogation: Science and Art
Foundations for the Future
Phase 1 Report
Intelligence Science Board
http://www.fas.org/irp/dni/educing.pdf

The document is a good examination of historical, academic and practical issues on interrogation.

It makes a case that torture is probably unnecessary and suspected to be counter-productive for interrogation purposes. But this is not shown to be researched.

It is there to encourage research on interrogation techniques. The last research done is from the 1950s. The document also details where Police, the CIA and others get their current techniques.

The paper has a strong anti-torture stance and shows how torture came to be used in the first place, much due to (again) lack of research and fall-back to counter-torture techniques of the cold war being misused as interrogative techniques.

It calls for research and proper training in actual interrogation techniques.

What do you think on this topic?

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

What's debugging you ask? When you know there is a bug in your program, you find it by the process of debugging. How do medical doctors do it? And how they may be doing it wrong.

To debug, you:

1. Observe symptoms (a program getting stuck, crashing or giving you wrong results).
2. Locate where the problem is (usually piece of code which causes the mess).
3. Fix it.

All three basic steps can be much more complicated than they sound. You may need to work hard to understand what symptoms you are seeing. You may break your head trying to figure out what's causing them, and you may waste even weeks trying to fix the issue.

Doesn't the process sound familiar to how doctors diagnose to reach a prognosis? They:

1. Look for symptoms, passively or actively (physical examination) trying to observe the patient and question how the patient feels.
2. Perform tests to get a clearer understanding of what the problem may be.
3. Prescribe drugs, a workout, a diet or even surgery, trying to treat the problem and/or its symptoms.

Medical doctors can be perfect and still reach the wrong prognosis, for several reasons.

Observation
Outside signs can be misleading and caused by something unrelated, or by several different illnesses.

Patients may not know how something feels, or how to describe it.
"Where is it? The heart? The stomach?"
"How does it feel? Does it scratch? Itch? Burn?"

Many of us humans are not very aware of our bodies and how we feel. Our emotional spectrum may be limited to just "sad" and "happy". Guiding a patient through this discovery process can't be easy, and is not necessarily a part of how medical doctors are trained.

Locating
Locating the problem can be a repeat of Observation above, only with more fine-tuned tests, such as a blood test, a biopsy or even *shaking in boots* exploratory surgery.

The results can bring back no new information, be a definite answer, or provide yet more symptoms to add to the puzzle, helping to analyze what the picture looks like.

Fix it!
Fixing illnesses is not always possible even if doctors do find out what they are. It's possible that a cure has not yet been found, or that all you can treat is the symptoms and hope to alleviate the originating issue. If you can't, it may at least be possible to mitigate the pain, or to help the patient reach a better quality of life.

The problem is, debugging doesn't stop there.
A medical doctor will try to treat illnesses by how likely they are, as symptoms can suggest many different answers.

What is the most likely answer by looking at the symptoms? Then, what is the most likely of these to be present in this particular patient, say a 5 years old girl? Does the medical history tell us anything? Has the patient done anything out of the ordinary? What of trends of illnesses in recent history?
Then, is it likely to get a rare rain-forest disease in New york City? (Okay, bad example. Phoenix?)

Prescribe the likely solution, don't over-do it as you worry about side-effects and how the solution will impact the patient, or achieve the opposite goal. Schedule a follow-up examination. If solution fails, proceed to the next one until symptoms abate.

As a doctor friend of mine mentioned, likelihood is not the only part of what's called DD or "Differential Diagnosis". The examiner needs to also take into consideration seriousness and how treatable it is.

Does that sound reasonable?
It does, but what of emergencies? Say the patient reaches the hospital near death. The doctor may need to "fire in all directions" and hope for the best.

I met doctors in my life, and while many of them were very smart, many of them also had no idea what proper debugging looks like. This is best described by a story of what a friend of mine went through.

He described his symptoms to the doctor and the history of what was tried to resolve the symptom before, as no one discovered its cause up to that point. The doctor listened patiently and then prescribed SIX different drugs and said "let's try all of these and see what works."

While this is obviously an extreme case, my friend, an engineer by trade, was shocked. He may not understand medicine, but he understands debugging. That's not it.

Say the symptoms stop, which of the prescribed drugs do you stop?

Another question which pops to mind is:
How do you know if the result was not due to a combination of two of the drugs? Three?

Humans are not easy subjects. As my friend Ryan Russell (BlueBoar) said on twitter, perhaps they need to be taught how to better describe symptoms.

As my friend Inbar Raz mentioned on Facebook, the human body is not a friendly interface to debug. I wouldn't want to have to be the one doing it, but than again, I didn't attend seven years of medical school.

Making sure a doctor knows how to do proper debugging is basic, and more important than most of anything else he or she can be taught. This is what medical school is about, but obviously something gets broken by the time many doctors finish medical school.

Finally, a raging opinion.
There is not much we can do about many doctors being elitist snobs, and honestly, with as many patients as they need to see in a day I don't blame many of them for having this shield around them. The main downside I see is that they can not accept being corrected by the layman patient.

Many of them would rather say a symptom is psychosomatic than admit they are wrong. Do I blame them for this human trait? No. But as someone who will go see a doctor as a patient, I don't have to like it.

Unlike computer code, the human body is where we live. This is one black box we want to be careful with. Doctors are usually responsible, but some just don't know how to do so properly.

My friend described above said it best:

"Doctor, you are an expert. When I have car problems I go to a mechanic and while he sees hundreds of cars like mine--I know my car best--and it is making a sound that wasn't there yesterday. I can tell you it is coming roughly from an area 'here', but that's where my expertise end. I know my body best, and I come to you for help with what I feel."

The computer is engineered, and we know what it is made of (at least in theory). The human body is being reverse engineered, and we still have a long way to go. Medical doctors are technicians--granted, very smart and able technicians--but technicians non-the-less.

Teach doctors proper debugging.

Update:
Some medical professionals may find this post offensive. This is not an attack against doctors in general, neither is it about bad doctors existing. Medicine has been here for a long time and taught the world much. And of course, humans are not as helpful as computers, and are much more complicated.
I obviously lack information (to say the least) on how the process really works, but for us technical people "debugging" is what we call it. From my point of view many doctors seem to skim the process or replace it with prescribing drugs.

If any doctor is willing to share more on the process in the comments section below, we'd all appreciate it and I will point to the information here.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

It is common knowledge Paul Ekman is an adviser on the FOX TV show Lie to Me, which is roughly based on his work.

He is one of the few researchers of non-verbal communication who I appreciate.

He writes a blog speaking of each episode and instances of lie detection in it.

The Truth Behind Lie to Me:
http://fox.com/blogs/lietome/

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

[syndicated from my professional blog: http://gadievron.blogspot.com/2009/04/proposal-this-house-will-legalize-spam.html

I sent this today to the newly formed debate mailing list. While this is not necessarily my opinion, I am picking a side and running with it.

In other words, the opinions presented in this debate are not necessarily my own. People will either support this proposition, or tear it apart.

---

Proposal: This House Will Legalize Spam

Spam is a service answering a demand. Making the product legal will will inject our suffering economy with much needed currency and allow our government to tax this billions of dollars industry.

We have seen this happening with alcohol during the prohibition. Alcohol is no longer illegal, and great benefits resulted from that decision with a booming world-wide industry and disappearance of the black market economy.

Spam is a black market economy. Medicine is sold for high prices in the US, so black market spam operations answered the demand and sell drugs from Canada for a lower price. Many of these are fake and result in poor care in the best of scenarios.

Economically, the pharmaceutical industry is suffering and the government is losing potential taxation revenue. More importantly, if spam was regulated controls could be put in place to protect public health.

We have been waging a "war on spam" for two decades now with no victory in sight. More than that, the email system is under continued threat of no longer being usable.

Similar misuses have been addressed by legalization in the past. This includes post spam and fax spam, which today have clear regulation.

Most of the email traffic on the Internet today is spam, resulting in:

1. Increased operational costs for networks and service providers.

2. Clogged mail boxes, user annoyance and legitimate email being lost, resulting in loss of productivity.

3. A support infrastructure for other criminal activity ranging from phishing to child pornography.

Our respected opposition may claim that legalizing spam will open the door for other sorts of legalization. We believe this claim is a logical fallacy, falsely claiming a slippery slope to muddy the waters.

We believe that taking this route on spam is positive, other directions with other "products" should be considered on their own merit. It is a fact that the end of prohibition did not result in legalization of drug usage.

In support of my case I bring before you a case study (below), written by me two years ago for a zdnet blog. I demonstrate how an unrelated legalization caused a large percentage of spam to stop and spam operations to collapse, when the demand ceased.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

---

Taking down spammers: Successful spam fighting via legalization, regulation and economics

Original URL:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=720

By Gadi Evron

Working in the Israeli city of Netanya, next door to our offices was a spam operation with roughly 30 employees. One day they weren’t there anymore.

They were blog comment spammers, but officially were doing Search Engine Optimization or SEO. Instead of optimizing content, they posted illicit comments on many blogs with commercial or misleading messages leading to their clients’ web sites, mainly for the purpose of increasing their clients’ web sites visibility in search engines such as Google. They would do this using an illegal tool such as botnets, and make quite a bit of money.

The reason for their disappearance soon became clear; nearly all their clients were gone. A law was passed in the United States which addressed online gambling operations (”Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act” - UIGEA). As a result, the public gaming industry ceased accepting online wagers. More than that, UIGEA addressed processing payments to and from Internet gambling sites. In a day, most of US-based gambling web sites ceased to exist (others moved over-seas, although quite a bit of the world’s credit processing is done by US firms). This effectively caused
the death of numerous black hat SEO companies–comment spammers. Perhaps the UIGEA measure against processing of payments proved too difficult to overcome. Not being a lawyer I can’t say exactly how UIGEA caused this death. No matter, US online gambling operations were effectively destroyed.

Spam decreased. The underlying cause for that was that the clients weren’t there due to the inability to process payments because of the online Casinos law.

....
More...

Too tired and lazy to learn make-believe Latin?
Want to impress your friends by quoting Logical Fallacies?
The answer is: Fake it `till you got it! And forget the getting part...

1. Just pick a word. Any word. Example: Dwarf.

2. Then append: "atum" or "anum".

Result!

Dwarfanum, Dwrfatum.

3. Put it in the right format.
"Argumentum ad dwarfatum"
or just "ad dwarfatum"

4. If you want to be real tricky, change the "f" to a "v" to show that you're on top of your style and grammar.

Caveat: it's a good idea to avoid flatulantum.

5. Play with inflections as you like, no one really wanted to commit suicide for 2 months straight in a loop, 12 hours a day (a.k.a. learning Latin).

6. Profit!

:)

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

I've been working on non-verbal communication (popularized as body language), as well as on applied social influence (popularized as psychological manipulation) for a while now. I started looking into these fields after encountering quite a bit of manipulation in Washington DC and corporate environments. I'm a student of human nature.
Further, I am a student of argumentation and rhetoric, much like many other critical thinkers who read this, I am sure.

I am an educated critic of the body language industry and the silliness they sell to the masses, but I'm also a "believer".

After years of postponing it, I decided to study up on NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming), if only to be able to identify when those who practice NLP try to mess with me.
I postponed looking into it because I enjoy developing concepts related to body language and the use of verbal and written language on my own. I did not see any reason to "poison my mind" with other ideas while I was still enjoying and progressing on my own, regardless if these ideas are brilliant or inane.

I looked into NLP this past week. My impressions thus far are mixed. Please keep in mind I am not an NLP expert in any way and thus likely misrepresent NLP. Nor am I an expert on any relevant field mentioned while analyzing it, so I am probably misrepresenting those as well.

On the one hand many parts of NLP seem useful. Examples would be:

1. Learning how to use peripheral senses and pay attention to details ("Sensory acuity" in NLP).
2. Learning to read non-verbal cues ("External behavior" in NLP).
3. Learning to see things from the perspective of who you speak with, much like Method Acting as demostrated in Constantin Stanislavski's classic book "An Actor Prepares" ("Second position" and "Getting into state" in NLP).
4. Putting things into other contexts or frames of reference in order to re-examine them ("Reframing" in NLP).
5. Critical reading/thinking concerned with implied/missing communication ("Information gathering" in NLP).

I like some of the specific "techniques" they invented to study some of these, as well as to make use of them.

An example to an NLP teaching which I find especially troubling is Anchoring (Pavlovian conditioning for humans).
Anchoring is fascinating, and whether some of us are especially vulnerable to the power of suggestion or this is as advertised, I find it disturbing for no other reason than being voodoo (as computer programmers would call it). It's a black box of magic with no real idea as to how it works. I understand it has roots in psychology (which doesn't say much prima facia) and I'd be interested in seeing more about it.

A subject I have no immediate ideas as to its source is Visualization.
You imagine things and connect them with your feelings. I find the process interesting and want to explore it further, but I am not educated as to what it's supposed to do or how it does it.

My interim conclusion is that NLP is a combination of some completely silly notions, and some very brilliant notions taken from other fields. These are put together with some interesting new material. I cant find very many scientific or decent research into NLP to be satisfied, and I am far from happy about the workshop "Fad of the Month"-like state the relating industry [apparently] is in.

I am happy there are methods which take critical thinking, awareness of our environment, etc. and put them in a popular form the public can ingest easily. I am far from happy about lack of research and "psych-babble" language used in the process, making it _sound_ more like an easy "all-in-one" religion, regardless of what it actually is.
I am very unhappy about techniques such as anchoring, which are better left in the hands of mental professionals, being put in the hands of anyone who wants them.

The skeptic's dictionary seems to cover the NLP industry and it's [apparent?] silliness well. It is however constructed mainly as an attack on this industry and it's main personalities in (possibly justified) ad-hominem and ad ridiculum attacks. It doesn't contain information on what NLP is made of.

I would appreciate feedback and more information from people who know more than me about NLP, psychology and linguistics. Again, this is just a snapshot of my preliminary thinking on the matter. I am far from an expert in NLP to portray it correctly, nor in the fields it took its different influences from.

Update:
1. Al Christians referred me to this work commissioned by The Army Research Institute in 1984, which looks at ways of improving human performance, including NLP. They were not impressed:
Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques
By Daniel Druckman, John A. Swets, National Research Council (U.S.)

Here's a direct link to the NLP section.

2. There is a Wikipedia page listing studies on NLP. NOTE: It is listed as not up to scratch by Wikipedia's neutrality standards (at the time I viewed it), but I don't see a talk page there.

3. As my friend and former editor Bill Brenner mentioned, claims of "quick fixes" are immediately suspect, as experience shows psychological issues don't get "fixed" magic-like in a very short time frame. Conversely, things that do are often found to be snake-oil solutions or pseudo-psychological vulnerability to suggestions (think "healing"), although I don't want to claim that of NLP as of yet.

4. It took me a while to locate it, but there are two Amazon discussions of interest. The excellent discussions take place on two book reviews by "The Doctor (The Tardis)". First one is here and the second one is here. They mention research regarding NLP, origins of Anchoring, etc. The books under review, however, can apparently be completely ignored.

I will keep studying NLP as long as it makes sense to do so. For now I am enjoying myself both from learning new things as well as analyzing the possible B/S components. I'm a skeptic, but I can also recognize when I'm learning (whether it's what they wanted me to learn or not, is a different question). I will keep the readers of this blog updated.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

Scientists and many religious institutions accept that natural selection, a process of evolution not as the origin of life but as the continuing development of life, exists. How does homosexuality fit in with this process?

Accepting that evolution by natural selection (terms often confused in popular culture) did develop homosexuality, and failing to come up with a reasonable theory as to why it would fail in such a way if procreation is a leading goal, I decided to look at it from the opposite perspective. What if homosexuality in humanity serves an evolutionary purpose? What is that purpose?

Our understanding of homosexuality, before science caught up, changed with consensus throughout history. In our culture in the last century alone it used to be attributed to a possesion by the devil, a psychological illness and a concious choice. The argument whether it is a social or biological matter is not completely settled, but evidence shows it is indeed most likely a genetic disposition.

While most homosexuals are not exclusively so, estimates I read state that around 3% of the general population is. While genetic disposition toward homosexuality has been shown to exist, some people would engage in homosexual activity through other routes ranging from choice to lack of sexual choice (months at sea, prison, etc.)

Limiting ourselves to biology and the most likely genetic theory (which is the premise for this text), let's first examine homosexuality and why it exists from the regular point of view of it being a counter-productive gene.

The question of why natural selection would introduce homosexuality boggles the mind. Yes, there is nothing wrong with gays as people, but as far as natural selection goes, they don't naturally procreate and therefore their existance is counter-intuitive to the process.

Two possiblilties immediately present themselves:
1. Evolution is a force partially powered by chance.
2. Other factors in the human genome may have been favored at some point, which carried homosexuality with them.

Accepting these as premises, we can alter our question to: why wouldn't homosexuality be weeded out at some point in the history of humanity?

Again, immediately we can think of possible theories:
1. It was introduced rather late in our evolution, and therefore did not have a chance to be die out.
2. The other main driving force of evolution is survival, and therefore was introduced as an unintended consequence of an adopted survival mechanism.
3. Homosexuals consciously sought both survival and replication, and continually acted according to necessity, a wish to procreate and/or cultural norms, and produced offspring.
4. Genetics is a complicated subject, and even if we assume no homosexuals in history produced children, the genetic marker could re-appear later on in the genealogical line.
5. Humanity is everywhere and people procreate. Even if homosexuality disappeared in some places, it could easily be reintroduced with cross-pollination of genetic lines.

Evolution is one of the scientific theories most backed by empirical research and proof. My above guess-work of theories, isn't (it's possible someone researched these, but I don't have that information).

Looking into this, I discovered a long standing theory with no backing, claiming that homosexuals are altruistic beings, who exist to help the rest of humanity procreate. Cute and even charming, but has no proof attached to it either.

That brings us to our second hypotheses, trying to look at homosexuality as a feature rather than a bug. A set of questions: what if homosexuality is not a mistake? What if it has an evolutionary purpose? What could that purpose be?

Thinking of that was an epiphany for me, if only for being excited about the marvelous process of trying to figure out such a purpose.

We can take it on faith, which is alright, but I'd rather look for alternative theories with proof attached. What possibilities are there?

I am not an expert, far from it. But I do recognize that life is a complicated system and I theorize accordingly. Proving my theories is a whole other matter.

One would be similar to the altruistic theory above, that homosexuality evolved to make sure that some among us would not be dictated to by influence of the other sex, able to help humanity as a whole, progress. Cute, full of holes. Next.

Another would be that homosexuality introduces difficulties into human society. Cute, but we have enough no matter who we are or under what societal influence we grew up. Full of holes. Next.

I can come up with more, but what are your ideas? Better yet, do you have an answer?

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

Hi all,

One of the things I do in life is attempt new projects, often involving
communities.

One of my current projects is to try and develop a debate-like tradition
over email.

The idea is to do so in a mailing list to test it out.

If you want to participate in a debate on a general discussion mailing
list, with members who are good and intelligent arguers, please do
contact me.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

This chat is not as interesting as previous ones, but I kept thinking that unless he breaks character at some point, I'd always doubt a TINY bit. I guess that's why criminals who never confess, even against over-whelming evidence, always leave some sort of doubt in people's minds.

Connecting to server...
Looking for someone you can chat with. Hang on.
You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
You: hi!
Stranger: I built a time machine.
Stranger: Hello.
You: hehe, is that a stock line you tell everyone so that people don't hang up?
Stranger: Not at all.
Stranger: I'm dead serious.
You: what kind of time machine?
You: :)
Stranger: Well it's basically a tube you get in.
Stranger: Spins around really fast.
Stranger: But you don't spin.
Stranger: The tube does.
Stranger: And it uses electricity.
You: how come you don't spin?
Stranger: You don't need to spin
Stranger: It would make you sick.
Stranger: And perhaps die.
Stranger: So I threw a cat in there one day
You: yes you do, it's how nature works. why don't you spin?
Stranger: We do spin in nature - you're right.
Stranger: But very slowly.
Stranger: Otherwise we'd all be puking.
You: if the tube spins and i am in it, i'd be spinning too.
You: unless...?
Stranger: Nope.
Stranger: You hover.
Stranger: Using magnets.
You: how do you hover?
You: why would magnets affect me?
Stranger: And the spinning of the tube causes the atoms to melt.
Stranger: The magnets make you hover.
Stranger: I have patents for this.
You: alright, you just went beyond my suspended disbelief for this movie
You: :)
Stranger: This is reality.
Stranger: No movie at all.
You: good for you
Stranger: So I'm wondering if I should get in the tube.
Stranger: And try it.
You: oh i see
You: you're a chat bot!
Stranger: But I don't know how to set a date.
Stranger: I'm human.
Stranger: Test me.
You: okay, how much is 1+1 ?
Stranger: 2
Stranger: Two
Stranger: Not too or to
You: okay, who is the pr e ce-identa of the US de A?
Stranger: Obama
Stranger: See, I'm human.
You: :)
You: hehehe
You: so, who are you, stanger?
Stranger: So this time machine is real.
Stranger: An inventer.
Stranger: I just don't know what time I'll end up at.
You: and beyond that?
Stranger: Beyond that,
Stranger: well.
Stranger: I'm a scientist.
You: good for you
Stranger: I'm worried I'll go back to the dinosaur era.
Stranger: And will be immediately eaten.
You: of course you are.
You: did i tell you? i invented a time machine too, and what you say is not how it works
Stranger: Ok I'm serious here and you're not helping.
You: you lied to me, i am not sure how to take that. it's a urdenon our relationship
Stranger: I'm sorry.
Stranger: Here's the truth.
Stranger: It DOES spin you.
Stranger: Sorry.
You: heheehheeehh
You: you're fun
Stranger: I can't wait to go back into time.
You: how do you get back?
Stranger: I think I'll build another one,
Stranger: and take it with me?
You: how?
Stranger: I need to work out these bugs before I go for it.
You: hehehe
You: so, enough chit-chat
You: what do you do, stranger?
Stranger: I'm a computer programmer / administrator.
Stranger: You?
You: computer security
Stranger: Nice.
You: aren't we boring? :)
Stranger: This is why we come here.
You: hehehe
Stranger: And talk about our time machines.
You: i come here because it's fun
You: you're into scifi?
Stranger: Not one bit.
You: oh well, nobody's perfect
Stranger: Ah man I think I have to go.
You: have a good one
Stranger: You too.
You have disconnected.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

Anonymity aside, we all still look for commonalities. Be it a guy looking for a girl and therefore not chatting to any guys, or a black making sure you are as well.

Looking for someone you can chat with. Hang on.
You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
Stranger: WHAT'S UP MY NIGGER?
You: hi stranger!
You: 'SUP DOG?
Stranger: XD
Stranger: You're not black?
You: hehe
You: nope, you?
Stranger: Yes
Stranger: Peace bitch
Your conversational partner has disconnected.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

You may find this one boring, but I found it absolutely fascinating seeing how a person views the world in a way I find fscked up.

The person's social identity is what builds her (my guess) view of good and evil. I am thinking 17 years old.

I wish she wouldn't have disappeared:

Connecting to server...
Looking for someone you can chat with. Hang on.
You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
Stranger: sup
You: hi random person :)
You: i'm great!
You: you?
Stranger: great
You: fun
You: whatcha up to?
Stranger: watching the ncaa's womens game
Stranger: just finished
Stranger: uh and about to work on a school project
Stranger: gotta do dishes too
Stranger: you?
You: anything interesting or just boredom?
You: i'm considering sleep, been up all night
Stranger: what time is it?
Stranger: its 10PM here
You: i find omegle really fascinating
Stranger: yeah
You: 6 AM here
Stranger: oh wow
You: hehe
Stranger: what country is that
You: i'm from israel
You: you?
Stranger: oh okay
Stranger: i'm from the US
Stranger: texas
You: cool
You: i've just been to dallas two months ago
Stranger: oh
Stranger: for what?
You: conference
You: where in texas are you?
Stranger: school?
Stranger: austin
Stranger: i don't like dallas too much
You: no, work
Stranger: people are mean
You: yeah, that's what all the austin people say :P
Stranger: self-centered there
You: erm, why mean? they were nice enough to me...
Stranger: maybe superficial
Stranger: they're nice as long as you're visiting
You: maybe..
You: i've never really been into attributing charactertistics to whole groups
You: but i guess big cities are like that
Stranger: how is israel?
You: how is austin different?
You: israel is fun
Stranger: people are nicer
Stranger: they try to ride bikes instead of driving cars
Stranger: they try to shop at small mom and pop stores instead of big chains
You: ahh, you are a social activist
You: :)
You: so it's not the people who aren't nice, it's the society norms in dallas?
You: hello?
You: hello #2
You have disconnected.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

In this Omegle chat a guy (apprently, could be a prank) comes out of the closet for the first time. It's not always clear what to say.

Connecting to server...
You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
Stranger: i need to tell someone that im gay
You: hi random stranger! :)
You: okay, i now know you're gay.
Stranger: and you are the first person
You: is that a sentence you use to get people interesting in chatting with you here? kind of weird just stating that like that
Stranger: no i was being serious
You: okay
You: no disrespect meant
Stranger: and you are the first person ever
Stranger: and i dont even know you.
You: well, i'm not gay,but i have a few gay friends.
You: well, maybe you not knowing me makes it easier on you? i don't mind. i appreciate being able to chat with you here.
Stranger: my family hates gay people
Stranger: and thats why i dont like myself
Stranger: and there is no one to talk to
You: that's what the Internet is for
You: a lot of gay communities online
Stranger: it just seems
Stranger: like
You: yes?
Stranger: im sorry
Stranger: i dont know what i was going to say
You: don't worry about it
You: what makes it easier for you to tell me, also makes it difficult for me to trust that you are really really real. but for chatting, i will assume you are. fair?
Stranger: fair
Stranger: i am real
You: and as i am just some random anonymous person, you assume you can tell me what you like. deal?
Stranger: i just feel fake
Stranger: telling someone i dont know
Stranger: thanks for listening random person.
You: well, you may be anonymous and i may not know who you are, but you are still a real person chatting. right?
You: hey, no problem random guy with family issues
Stranger: what should i do.
Stranger: this is my biggest fear not having a family
You: i can't tell you that, but i can tell you that i learned to expect that sometimes life is not easy, and i need to be calm and make my decisions later rather than immediately
Stranger: but i feel like i have to either kill myself or move as far away as i can and never talk to them again
Stranger: and killing myself isnt an option.
Stranger: maybe.
You: well, try and not be scary, creepy and crazy by speaking of suicide. as i assume that you are real and not just yet another prankster, let's talk about why you think you only have TWO OPTIONS?
Stranger: noo i dont want to kill myself its just an option that i have concidered
You: alright, you sound like a reasonable guy
You: you're a guy, right?
Stranger: brb
Stranger: give me a sec
You: ok
Stranger: i am back
You: :)
You: welcome back!
You: so, you're a guy?
Stranger: and yes
You: may i ask how old?
Stranger: 17
You: well, that makes it much easier!
Stranger: why?
You: you have at the very least another year of living at home before you need to make any decisions, and then you can also go to college, or work harder to go to college. that gives you a few years of discovering both yourself and the relationship with the family, from far away
Stranger: i dont know tho
Stranger: im so scared.
Stranger: im so.
Stranger: scared
You: what are you scared of?
Stranger: just loosing people i love for showing them who i really am.
You: well, one thing that i am having difficulty learning here, is to not make decisions when i'm emotional
You: to give things time and see how they work out.
You: that is not saying that you should ignore the problem, or not accept who you are or deal with the family issue
You: just that you have time to consider how to do it right
Stranger: i appreciate your input.
You: i try....
Stranger: and it makes sense to do things right
You: well, i am just sharing my t experience, it is your reading of it that makes you think of what you should do
Stranger: how old are you?
You: if your family is that difficult, and i am sure they still love you, it makes sense to look at what you can gain by telling them now, versus later on when you are in control of your own life.
You: i'm [removed state secret from log file]
Stranger: maybe one day ill run into someone on the street
Stranger: talk to them in a line or something
You: why wait? look for a community of people with the same problem online
Stranger: and it will be you and we wont even know it
You: well, we meet people all our lives. y'know what they say, humans are social creatures.
Stranger: indeed
Stranger: im tired
You: :)
Stranger: i think im going to go.
Stranger: but
You: you're a cool guy, i'm not worried about you. you'll find the right way
You: okay. it was good to chat with you.
Stranger: thanks so much.
You: no problem. :)
Stranger: im going to be wondering
You: about?
Stranger: are you a male or female?
You: i'm male
Stranger: alright thats cool
You: one last thing
Stranger: well
Stranger: thanks again
Stranger: bye
Stranger: oh
Stranger: ?
You: the world is full of people who are understanding, as it is of people who are idiots. remember to not take things too personally from the drones who just learned to hate. unfortunately, they're all around us. but remember ther eare people like me who are open minded. okay?
Stranger: i really hope i find someone like you someday
You: you will. we're all over the place. hehe
You: have a good night buddy
Stranger: :)
Your conversational partner has disconnected.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

So far, I chatted with a dirt-road worker from Australia and a 15 years old sophomore girl tennis player from Maryland (trying to explain without sounding parent-yy about not sharing private information on the net).

But the most fun chat, was the following. It is NSFW. If you have a problem with swearing, sex, PC, etc. content, please don't read.

Connecting to server...
You're now chatting with a random stranger. Say hi!
You: hi random stranger! :)
Stranger: You know who's a great actor? Keanu Reeves.
Stranger: I expect to be booted off in five seconds
You: hehehe, what other stock lines do you use to start chatting? :)
You: well, if you don't say much more, you will get booted.
Stranger: I wish we could have usernames on this damn site. I would love to be called rapemaster
Stranger: Also, something about dongs.
Stranger: LOTS AND LOTS OF DONGS
You: hehehe
Stranger: CHOO CHOO
You: you could also be a chat bot, just spewing random shit
Stranger: Shnaa
Stranger: Spambots are too stupid to understand dongs
Stranger: It's their loss
You: you're funny
You: where are you from?
Stranger: Philly
Stranger: NORTHEASTERN Philly
Stranger: No Bel-Air for you
Stranger: EVER
You: :)
You: i worked in Horsham for a few months
Stranger: What is that? Some sort of illegal sexual position?
Your conversational partner has disconnected.
or send us feedback.

hehehehehe
I love Omegle.

gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

Are you interesting enough at first impression? Do you introduce yourself well? On Omegle if you don't you're disconnected.

Reading the funsec mailing list discussion about twitter, David Chess referred to a new web site called Omegle. Dave wrote about it here.

Omegle allows you to start real-time chats with random anonymous people who can disconnect you at any time. Fascinating stuff.

My friend Imri Goldberg checked it out and convinced me I should look as well. On funsec he said:

---

My impressions:
1. Technically, it works really well.
2. What it is: web-based chat with random strangers.
3. Reminds me of my early days on IRC. You meet new people that are guaranteed to be at least somewhat interested in talking.
4. There is full anonymity, in the sense that you don't have a consistent identity that's kept from one conversation to another.*
5. There is no cost to disconnecting, if you don't like the conversation.
6. It's very much like speed-IRC, as in "speed dating" as opposed to regular dating.
7. Since you get a very specific IRC-like experience (meeting new people you'll never meet again anonymously), you can practice like Socrates did on the beach (Imri corrected this to Demosthenes: http://itotd.com/articles/319/demosthenes-stones/). You have only a few minutes and a few sentences to convince someone you're interesting, or they just disconnect, and you both move on.
8. You still have a lot of the IRC-like stuff, as in being asked "a/s/l" and so on. [age/sex/location]
9. I wondered how secure it is, who is logging the conversations/ip addresses involved etc.

All in all, a cute service. Also nice to know it was written by an 18-year old that's just finishing high-school, and as I said, it works well.

Cheers,
Imri.

* I was reminded of a very good discussion of online identities here: http://www.juliandibbell.com/texts/bungle.html. Old, but thought-provoking read. The relevant quote from that text is:

"Inside the MOO, however, such thinking marked a person as one of two basically subcompetent types. The first was the newbie, in which case the confusion was understandable, since there were few MOOers who had not, upon their first visits as anonymous "guest" characters, mistaken the place for a vast playpen in which they might act out their wildest fantasies without fear of censure. Only with time and the acquisition of a fixed character do players tend to make the critical passage from anonymity to pseudonymity, developing the concern for their character's reputation that marks the attainment of virtual adulthood."

---

My take on it is similar, I was very excited:

Omegle has a simple interface. No complex functionality at all. You can chat, and you can disconnect. You are anonymous unless you choose to tell the other person who you are.

I just finished my first chat there, and it was fun. It seems like a waste to me to be able to chat with people and yet not necessarily keep in touch, but the experience with the types of people you meet makes all the difference.

Unlike Imri, I was not reminded of Demosthenes meeting random people on the beach, but rather of the old classic movie adaptation for the novel Logan's Run where random people who match you exactly are transported to you so you can have non-committal sexual relations. Only in Omegle's case, not sexual.
This won't turn into a dating service (I'll probably be proven wrong).

The experience felt like a shot in the dark. You find someone random, defying the whole idea of the Internet where interest groups on every subject meet each other and become a marketing force based on that affiliation.

More interesting, this service as Imri mentioned with the Demosthenes story, raises the subject of how one introduces oneself to be interesting. Also, it allows us to talk to people without any prior knowledge or prejudice on who they are, which normally affects our social engine--how we treat other people and get treated.

The story of Omegle once again shows us that the cost of developing on computers is small to non-existent. If an 18 years old guy can create this, anyone can learn how to.

Update:
Chat bot for Omegle:
http://robotstranger.com

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org

I read an article this week which made me think. It took a generic phrase for success right out of a business self-help book, and covertly showed how it applies to current events with specific examples from politics and international relations. Tying it together at the end to show President Barack Obama where the author believes he went wrong. While the phrase was not specifically mentioned I was inspired and impressed. I am not sure this was intentional, but non-the-less "ME like".

In this post I will examine both what the article said (part which inspired me, anyway) and why I usually tend to disrespect others who say the same thing. If you want to read just about Barack Obama, skip to the right section below. Hint: it's the same as the title of this post.

It was in the last Economist (March 26th, 2009). There was a section examining President Obama's progress during his two months in office. I can't find the precise link online at the moment (I will look for it), but these were the two main articles.

"Just Think Positive"
When someone spits out a buzz sentence for instant success as a Tao of living one's life, I get suspicious. Most of the time these would be people who learned to believe in these buzzwords and take them to be The Tao of Life. Copy-cats who went to some workshop for three days and believe they discovered the answer to life's mysteries, religiously. They didn't learn how to think, only how to default to a "safe" programming routine which shows them what they should do, and where they went wrong.

No matter the circumstance (particular incidents or events which may be special cases) and never mind perspective (truth changes depending on point of view). It's all The Truth. Replacing one religion for another.

Useful, and pathetic. Yes, at the same time.

"Always Look Forward. Never Look Back"
You know the type. This is not to diss on all "workshops" or self-help courses and books, only on the Fad of The Month ones, and the people who get reprogrammed there.

I first encountered the phrase "Fad of The Month" when I purchased The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry (very thin at 63 pages. Packaging cost me more than the book, and of course Amazon put it in a new box before mailing).

In it the author mentioned that when the developer of this organizational development and change method (I believe David Cooperrider of Case Western Reserve University) was asked why he didn't write any popular article or book on the subject, he replied he didn't want it to become yet another Fad of The Month (my addition: think most self-help books and workshops).

Always Keep Trying
Question these folks who believe this is their truth and they will retort with the same buzzwords, in a circular logic. They may also blame you for being unenlightened (or an a-hole).

Try and accept their premise to be able to hold a discussion, trying to show them how always thinking positive is OKAY, but doesn't apply to this specific case, and you get more of the same. Logic escapes them. Strike that, thinking escapes them.

"Predict Success and You May Fail. Predict Failure and You Will Fail"
Barack Obama is starting to waver on Afghanistan. He was referred to as saying that the war may not be winnable. Through-out his campaign he mentioned how Afghanistan was a Just War (Casus Belli) and a Must War, as that's where the enemy is. To illustrate why this is important, Iraq he treats as a war of Choice.
Disclaimer: All of the above is my understanding of what he said, in my own words.

It is true that NATO and the United States are not winning in Afghanistan. It is also true the strategy employed there does not seem to be working, and that while said strategy is currently under review, [apparently] no one has any idea how to win it.

While the above can be acknowledges, saying it is not winnable is far from advisable:

1. If you don't want to get out, don't show signs of weakness to an enemy that watches for them with the strategy of "out-live the West's (or the American's) will to fight.
2. If you want to get out, don't tip your hand.

Further, as President Obama is currently looking for support to conduct war in Afghanistan, at his own party, in both houses (especially Congress?) and in Europe, displaying such a poor outward appearance is appalling.

Beyond not showing leadership, it shows those you want to commit to your cause with soldiers who may die fighting for it, that you don't really believe in it, or that they may get stranded without you.

Appearances aside, what's missing is called Resolve, and it is called Leadership.

Showing this example of diplomacy and international relations and tying it with the quoted phrase
"Predict Success and You May Fail. Predict Failure and You Will Fail", makes it one of the most inspiring articles I read this year. I wish that the Economist mentioned author names so I could email with thanks.

Any entrepreneur and business major, MBA and CEO, should read the articles in this section.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

In this surprising article at the Wall Street Journal, an old idea is portrayed which claims the Arab countries manufactured and perpetuate the suffering of the Palestinian people in Gaza to use as leverage against Israel.

It is surprising because the author is a Palestinian who claims her father was assassinated by Israel.

My interest in this article is very different, and not political. One of my interests in recent years has been how large-scale manipulation happens. Whether is it with the recent scare associated with the Conficker worm, Y2K or even how the Rusiaan-speaking population of the Internet became enraged and attacked the country of Estonia online.

Detaching from the political situation for a moment, it would have been really great to research how a society is built and manipulated solely for political leverage--if that is indeed the case.

Two problems:

1. You'd need emotional detachment such as that we have today about the Roman Empire. Nobody here is really upset about their conquests anymore. Right?

Proving it in either direction, would be highly intriguing.

2. "You find what you look for"--the bias attached to Natural Research and how it is far from perfect.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

I recently started blogging for Dark Reading, I will still be blogging here, but what I write there is for Dark Reading alone.

I noticed that because I didn't write for a while, my writing became rather poor (in my taste). I constantly move between between official and personal language, and find it more difficult to write short, and to the point. But I'm getting there.

So far I posted two blogs:
German Intelligence Caught Red-Handed In Computer Spying, Analysis

According to German Web site Der Spiegel, the German foreign intelligence agency BND has supposedly been spying on computer systems around the world in the past couple of years.

Everyone does it. Why not governments?

Authoritatively, Who Was Behind The Estonian Attacks?

In the past couple of weeks the press has been humoring a couple of rumors about who was behind the 2007 cyberattacks against Estonia [PDF]. During these attacks, Estonia's infrastructure, which relies heavily on the Internet, nearly collapsed.

This is not the first time such baseless attributions were made.

I was in Estonia when the attacks occurred. I wrote the post-mortem analysis and recommendations for the Estonian CERT, and I am going to authoritatively show you why these claims are baseless. I will list these accusations and responsibility claims, and show you why they should be ridiculed.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

While most new "genre" shows this season are not too promising, there's a new alternative history show called Kings which I've been highly impressed with (at least as far as the pilot goes).

It shows an alternative modern society, with a ruling monarchy. It has a good combination of the modern and the classic, plus a strong biblical sense of an underline premise that God is real, and taking an active (although indirect) role in human affairs.

It builds the world around it in a layered fashion, dealing first with characters, then with God, then human politics.

The show's hero is David, who in one scene stands alone against a tank type called Goliath. Obvious end-game aside, the story does not match the biblical one much more than a few key points. It was fun to watch and didn't feel crappy as most other shows nowadays.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

Today I came across an event announcement for Anime-expo, which was:
A debate tournament. At an Anime con! :)

I considered implementing something similar myself for defcon (THE security and hacking conference).

I've just shared this with about 500 other con organizers in the scifi and Anime realms, so I think things are about to become interesting.

Finding it, I had to share, it's a grand idea!
http://forums.anime-expo.org/index.php?showtopic=8744

You will be hearing more from me on this. Perhaps a plan on how to combine a British Parliamentary Debate with a fan convention is an article I need to write?

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

[This was originally written for a community of science fiction con runners, which is why it has that clear theme. I altered it to fit the subject I ended up with.]

I just came across the following blog post, where the author discusses an email he received, advertising a conference in a deceptively persuasive fashion.

While I use the "scarcity" "trick" myself, I make sure and use it only when seats really are running out, and once at the beginning--Alerting people to how many seats we have as they all already know we will run out very quickly.

That of course refers to another "trick" the author mentions--social proof. Looking back at my "spam" emails I don't abuse it beyond the mentioning the seats available, in any advertisement. But I do make use of it, I know people who go to the con enjoy themselves, and discuss it amongst themselves and with their peers. I enjoy the back-lash email bombardment of "I really wanted to make it" as it helps me help others make it next time.

There is a downside to understanding persuasion. Our knowledge of it.

After being exposed to quite a bit of manipulation, especially in corporate environments and around Washington DC, I became _aware_ (apologies for use of new age terminology) that it "exists". Later on I was disturbed by finding out the same tools in my repertoire (or weapons in my arsenal if you like) I've used in good communication are used in manipulation as well. This made me think quite a bit if others, and myself, are acting in a manipulative fashion.

The difference between communication and manipulation is tricky at best. It is in Intent (of attacker) and Perspective (of victim), and we can add a third category of examination, the X, or Asimov "Mule", factor--Specific incident--which might change our normal understanding in specific odd-ball cases. Both in the decent meaning of influence, in good communication, and in the "evil" one, manipulation, noticing that I, or others, say or do something which answers to one of these possible "tricks" of influence immediately puts it under scrutiny of self-awareness (apologies for new-agey term) if it makes use of any of these "tricks".

Robert Cialdini in his book "Influence: Psychology of Persuasion" takes a part a sub-set of the world of influence and helpfully puts it into clearly defined and named categories by the use of terminology. That, not the text, is the greatest asset of the book.

He often mentions how all these tools of persuasion are really normal tools humans use to avoid over-loading with needless, indeed countless, decisions that spam our daily lives, and to make better decisions to boot (everybody buys an iphone, it *must* be better! it sure is cool, though). Knowing about how these work though, means the con artists, sales people, etc. will use them against us.

But as people who run conventions and conferences, how do we both use, and abuse, these "tricks" of influence? How can we make better use of them, and avoid being deceptive?

Notice yourself using it in your advertisement? Feeling left out as you are not a convention/conference manager? Have any anecdote from your position.. or daily life?

You can view the discussed blog which inspired this post, here:
http://www.changingminds.org/blog/0902blog/090227blog.htm

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

Hi all. ISOI is once again happening, and back to the States.

Almost final agenda: http://isotf.org/isoi6.html

As usual, while attendance is limited to the folks who are busy "saving the Internet"/"fighting crime", it is free of charge.

Once again we offer the public at-large the opportunity to attend without such membership. The process is: you submit a relevant talk, get vetted and get accepted.
We have two slots reserved for such a purpose.

Subjects of interest: case studies, attacks, botnets, fraud, ...
To submit email your talk idea to contact@isotf.org.

Is it time to say merry Xmas yet?

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.

This post is about All Hallows' Eve as I experienced it in Poland, about remembrance, and the unseen economic forces I observed behind the scenes.

As part of my trip to Poland (which I will cover in a later, much happier, post) I met with Ela, whom I had briefly met before in Israel. She took me to a local cemetery for All Hallows' Eve. It was an uncomfortable walk, an emotional visit and a place where many background things showed themselves, and how they may be quietly, economically, impacting the world.

Ela is an ideologist with strong opinions and refers to herself as a "dissident". Highly loyal to her country (yet not afraid to be a critic) she works to right wrongs and protect the weak--Anywhere. She has an agile mind, but is so "on target" that she can at times miss the obvious, but not for long, and despite being moved by her emotions, she recognizes cold reason when presented to her.

I had a lovely meeting with her, but before we could sit and chat she insisted on taking me to a nearby cemetery. I'll first describe what was seen, and then what I saw--The hidden economy of life, and I suppose in this case, of death.

Being religious, Ela doesn't appreciate Halloween, as she sees it as a caricature of her worship. Demeaning the day in which she remembers those who have passed, inverting its purpose of self reflection. Being open-minded, she doesn't care if others celebrate Halloween in the now replicated "American" way (even me, partying here in Israel or there in Poland) but it's not for her.

First laying eyes on the cold stone fence and the tombstones behind it, I sighed audibly. What a waste of time. And of effort--To be polite. Yet, I was there. And as I was so was I now intrigued.

What I saw in the cemetery moved me. Hundreds if not thousands of graves, all of which with but few to many dozens of lit oil lamps (and some flowery plants) placed on them, displayed for the world to see. Strife and opinion put aside, Poles all go to the cemeteries that day to show respect, and remember. That, or in all likelihood their parents make them--No matter how old they may be--Much like they will "ask" their children.

Looking into the night I saw lights in the darkness, some twinkling behind a tree, others lined up to the distance. All carefully placed by the multitude of those who probably never even spoke to each other, all for the same reason, remembrance--resonating deep within me.

Not knowing the right etiquette, I still commented to Ela "let's not walk on the grass," there is something about such places that you simply know.

I am not one to get in touch with the holy feeling of any place, and I am one to get bored in museums (barbarian!!). Yet, even if moving between the graves was just going through the motions and feeling a bit odd--The multitudes, be it of people or of lamps, had me wondering all the while I was wandering, truly aimlessly and with bright eyes, on the beaten track.

There were some secrets to the cemetery.

Some, were obvious. I'd ask "Ela, what of the odd grave every once in a while with no lamps on it?". These felt so lonely. And she'd reply "these people probably have no relatives in town, or at all," I'd nod thoughtfully and she would go on "we have no family in town, either. So, we go to a grave with no lamps on it and place ours there. Elsewhere, someone does the same for our relatives' graves. We respect our dead, and the dead who have no one to come to them."

It's a win-win situation, you see? :)

Others, were obvious, and probably also noticed. "Ela," I'd say, dropping the extra "sexy" I often add when addressing her. She'd reply "Yes, these massive hills of garbage" at the entrance of the cemetery, mind you "...are in poor taste!"

I agreed, but couldn't help but comment after a moment of thought "and yet, there is order to the chaos. There is no garbage thrown on the grounds, anywhere."

The cemetery itself would put even Buffy's local cemetery in Sunnydale to shame, but it wasn't creepy. It was a place of memory, stones, and green grass. Yet the grass isn't always as green as your neighboring grave's, as you well know. Walking deeper into the cemetery, the previously clean tracks between graves were suddenly so full of leaves from the Fall that you could hardly step on the Earth.

A sign of decay? A show put on for the outside? A lazy keeper? More trees in that area? We didn't stop to check.

That area was darker, and also had significantly less graves in it. It had a monument on one side, and a large cross at the other. One was for the fallen soldiers who fought the Nazis during World War Two. Another was for the fallen in the resistance against the Nazis. Another monument was for the fallen in the resistance against the Soviet Union.. many of whom were members of the first resistance, but non survived many years into the occupation. This made this monument one for those who were "disappeared" during the reign of the Polish satellite state of before the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Each monument, or cross, was a mass grave. I didn't quite grasp that while staring into the darkness of grass with no graves on it.

Once I came over my half-shame at thinking about it, the patterns in which people placed the lamps on the graves caught my attention. Some were just put there in seemingly random placing. Others were immaculately placed. Some were on the ground, others on the tombstones.

Why half ashamed you ask? Well, I voiced the thought when we passed a double grave (probably for a husband and wife). There were big red lamps placed in a line right between the graves, separating them and other lamps put on both graves. "Probably trying to separate them from fighting beyond the veil." I joked, unsure how Ela would react.
:)

Looking at the cemetery and the.. event.. show.. taking place in it, with an economic eye, the market which formed outside, selling lamps, flowery plants and food, was probably a boost to Poland's economy that day, kind of like on the 4th of July in the States. A big business--People are dead, but there's a bright side! Right? ...?

More interesting though was the thought of the Warsaw Fire Department. I would really like to know what they were doing that night, and how many calls they received. Is there a special fire code for cemeteries, in Poland?

It reminded me of the potential for fire and how the Fire Department is aligned to cope with it, here in Israel for Lag BaOmer (a holiday where everyone and their sister lights a bonfires, all around the country (emptying every construction site of wood while they are at it, up to the point where these give away wood they buy especially just to keep themselves afloat).

I was there to experience Poland and its people (in the few days I had after my lecture), unlike many Israelis who go to glimpse what the holocaust left behind. While most of my trip was fun and games, I am glad Ela took me on this.. adventure? I am glad that I went, however unwillingly.

This was an interesting, touching, experience. One which I doubt many Israelis who visited Poland had experienced. Thank you Ela.

Gadi Evron,
ge@linuxbox.org.