The spread of technology

A further sign of the spread of technology in the United States, and in particular assumptions about technology.

The Social Security system has provided online access for several years. Online access is now needed to check your Social Security earnings statement (they are no longer mailed each year). It can also be used to apply for benefits, get tax statements, and find other information about your Social Security account.

Likely in a (probably misguided) response to recent government computer hacking, President Obama issued an executive order that agencies provide more secure authentication for online services. The Social Security Administration has responded with a new requirement. Those logging into the Social Security web site must provide a text message enabled cell phone and request a one time code by text message each time they log into Social Security.

So it now appears that Social Security recipients who might have computer access are also assumed to have a cell phone and know how to receive text messages.

Social Security's web site has already been annoying. Those still working need to log into the web site once a year to check their earnings statement. So what did Social Security do? Set a password expiration of 6 months. So every time you log into their site once a year you need to pick a new password.

Unfortunately, the added text message requirement is probably going to result in many elderly having more trouble managing their Social Security account (or more telephone support, which isn't necessarily very secure). Meanwhile, most cyber attacks are executed not by breaking into a consumer's account, but by phishing (convincing some low level employee to email big data files out) or by some semi-official access to the internal network of a company or agency. We can only hope they are figuring out how to improve this security.

Is it really about climate change?

An initiative on the Washington state ballot this fall shows some of the realities of politics. On the surface, the ballot measure is designed to fight climate change by imposing a tax on carbon emissions. What could be wrong with that? It seems to be exactly what any number of environmental and advocacy groups have been calling for. Yet the Washington ballot proposal is opposed by almost all of the groups calling for climate change legislation. Looking at this opposition shows the reality of the politics of climate change.

So why do environmental groups oppose a carbon tax? There appear to be two primary reasons:

First, the tax is revenue neutral. Rather than providing the government with money for new programs, the proposal uses the carbon tax to reduce other taxes and provide tax relief for low income individuals. These opponents appear to be more concerned with getting more money for new programs than in reducing carbon emissions. They want money used for programs ranging from environmental protection to helping "communities of color."

This insistence on using the tax for new programs also shows one of the long term problems of a carbon tax. If a carbon tax is implemented, a reduction in carbon emissions will result in a reduction in tax revenues. This gives the government and those benefiting from government money an incentive to (behind the scenes) promote carbon emissions. Traditional sin taxes (e.g. cigarette taxes) result in the same conflict -- eliminating tobacco use will result in a budget shortfall.

The second reason the ballot initiative is being opposed is a statement by the founder of the initiative. He said that liberals were more concerned with bigger government and race / class politics than simply dealing with climate change. He suggested that the Republican Party might be the better vehicle for carbon reduction.

That's all it took. It conflicts with the accepted narrative that Republicans are evil and took away a supply of, when all is said and done, patronage money which can be used for political allies.

This is an example of "bootlegger and baptist" regulation. Advocating a carbon tax is the "baptist" cause here, while the "bootleggers" are trying to get money for pet programs (or for that matter, the proposed tax cuts). One organization, the state Audubon Society, is brave enough to go against bigger government interests and support this measure as a way to do something about carbon emissions. They are a brave lone voice in what is likely to be a quite hypocritical campaign.

Indy publishing as practice

I was talking with an author last night and realized a change in the nature of published books the last few years. This author has published three books. These are self published books (now called independently published). Indie books are the fastest growing segment in publishing, made possible by Amazon and the rise of ebooks. In the past a new author had to sell a book to one of the large publishing houses. The alternative was to pay to have a "vanity press" print the books. Self published books were (often justifiably) assumed to be bad since publishers are supposed to pay authors, not the other way around. So prospective authors would often write a number of books before one was finally bought by a publisher.

Today authors can go the traditional route or they can go the new route of publishing electronically on Amazon. Alternatives exist but Amazon is the largest eBook platform around. Publishing a book on Amazon costs nothing, just sign up for an account, say where to deposit the royalties, and upload the book.

So back to the author I was talking with. He wants to write for one of the big publishers but doesn't think he's good enough. So he's writing multiple books a year in the hope he'll be good enough in the future for the big publishers.

After hearing this I realized that in the past an author's first, generally bad, work was discarded until the author is good to be published. Today authors are publishing these initial attempts, sometimes regardless of quality. If an author becomes a bestseller, people want to read everything the author has written. In the past the early work is mercifully unknown, or the author can rewrite it with the hindsight of experience. Today that early bad work is out there for everybody to see. I expect to see some number of  embarrassed authors in the future.

This is not to say indie books are bad. Big publishing houses are known to publish bad authors, and a bestselling author may have to put out a "contractional obligation" book he never wanted to write. There are also a lot of very good indie authors. Some don't want to go with a large publisher. Others have a style or genre of book big publishers aren't interested in at the moment. Established authors sell their older work as ebooks since the big publishers don't keep books in print more than a couple years anymore. So there's a lot good stuff out there but also a number of practice books.

Classified Hillary

While the FBI will not charge Hillary Clinton for putting classified material on her private email server, Congressional Republicans are responding. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has apparently asked that Mrs Clinton not receive any classified information during the campaign. And Senators (presumably all Republican) have introduced a bill to prohibit any Federal officer or employee who has been reless with classified material from keeping a security clearance. Obviously targeted at Hillary Clinton, it would be interesting if they passed the law and it denied her a security clearance as President.

However, Congress should take care, members of Congress have actively disclosed classified material in the past, more serious than just being reless. Many in the intelligence community would welcome revoking Congressional security clearances.

The cost of presidential elections

I've been reading Big Money by Kenneth P. Vogel. The book talks about the rise of Super PACs and big money in politics.

I'll start by saying big money has always been around in politics, and it doesn't always help. I was in Minnesota in 1982 when Mark Dayton ran for US Senate, spending $7 million of his own money (a record for any senate campaign at the time) and losing.

What struck me is thinking about the cost per vote of an election. A total of $7 billion was spent by he candidates, parties, and other grups in the 2012 presidential election. So what is the cost per vote?

About 127 million votes were cast. This means a over $50.00 was spent per vote cast, quite a sum. However, since most votes are pre-determined before the election (a large number of voters automatically vote for their party of choice and aren't going to cross party lines) so the real cost per vote must consider the number of votes which might be swayed. This also includes the number of people are convinced to go vote who wouldn't otherwise vote, along with the number who are convinced not to vote who might otherwise vote (this being money spent by the other side to "inhibit" a vote).

My guess is that, barring a candidate with extreme charisma (e.g. Ronald Reagan getting working class democratic votes) at most 10% of voters are subject to persuasion. So this implies that roughly 10-12 million voters are the target of all the political advertising, recorded phone calls, etc.

Given this smaller number, for a major party candidate, the actual cost per vote of a presidential election is more on the order of $500.

The Theranos promise of finger prick blood tests -- fact or fiction?

The New York Times reports: Elizabeth Holmes, Founder of Theranos, Falls From Highest Perch Off Forbes List.



I've been seeing articles on Ms Holmes for the last year or so. She claims to have technology which allows blood tests using a finger prick of blood rather than multiple vials. She dropped out of college to start a company to develop her new technology. The company is one of the "unicorns" often talked about -- private startup companies valued at over a billion dollars.



For the last 6 months the company has come under criticism and has had a lot of bad press. There are claims that the company's tests are inaccurate and that they are using conventional blood testing machinery for many of the tests. On the business side the company board of directors apparently doesn't include medical experts.



So is Theranos a scam? A new technology which didn't pan out? The company hasn't provided peer reviewed data on its technology, and the reports so far indicate that at the very least they are having trouble getting the product to market, not unexpected for a new technology.



Yet there is another aspect to this story. There are several very large players (existing labs, existing producers of blood testing equipment) who stand to lose a lot if Theranos' technology pans out. All of medicine is also highly regulated. Regulatory agencies are not known for their flexibility or acceptance of anything new. So the question arises -- how big is the real problem at Theranos and how much of the problem is the inability of regulatory agencies to deal with change?



Time will tell. My feeling right now is that Elizabeth Holmes really did have a new technology but that it's hit some snags (or doesn't work well enough). Investors have put $700 million into the company and they'll probably have a hard time raising more money, especially with the bad press. Hopefully we won't lose a promising new technology to bureaucratic incompetence or lack of funding to deal with unexpected problems.

Cellphone Radiation Linked to Cancer in Major Rat Study - maybe

Cellphone Radiation Linked to Cancer in Major Rat Study - IEEE Spectrum



A new, major study is showing a slight link between cell phone radiation and cancer. Yet the results of the study appear to show even more so the problem with studies. As with many cancer studies, rats were used, and exposed to much higher doses of radiation than provided by a cell phone, wireless, or other RF sources. As one commentor of this article said, a 50 lb rock hitting your head is very bad for your health, 50 lbs worth of marshmallows hitting your head over a period of time aren't a problem.



Complicating the study is the fact that the rats exposed to radiation, while showing a slight increase in cancers, apparently lived longer overall than the control rats. Should we worry about cell phone radiation? I'm not convinced.



However, maybe the tinfoil hat brigade has been right all along.