|
 |
20 August 2002 |
The Government says that research proves we're 4 times more likely to have a car accident if we're on the phone (Redelmeier and Tibshirani, 1997) - so proposes (PDF) to fine drivers up to £2,500 (instead of the current £30/£1,000 fine/conviction for failing to have proper control of a vehicle). Drivers would still be allowed to use hands-free mobile phones, although the paper's definition (Annex A, para 9) of "hands-free" is not mobile-plus-hands-free kit, but instead a phone that (a) is wired into the car and (b) does "not require the driver to significantly alter their position in relation to the steering-wheel to use it" - ie: no-one has a hands-free phone?!
Three bodies comment on this: the AA says that drivers should also be stopped from smoking and eating at the wheel if the use of mobile phones is to be banned. The RAC says "The only problem with specific legislation is where do you stop? Retuning the radio probably causes more accidents than using a mobile." And Rospa, one of the sources of the Gov's research (PDF), backs the legislation but sees no difference in the potential danger of hands-free phones and mobiles.
The Govt's consultancy report (PDF) notes that the value of preventing a road fatality is £1.1m (original source), but has no data on how many are caused by mobile phone use, nor on how many of those would be prevented by legislation.
10:45:50 PM 
|
|
CEO Kathy Layton tells Speechtech mag about General Magic's mission (to "bring voice to the enterprise by providing software that gives companies a strategic tool for implementing voice self-service") and their technology and partnerships: their own J2EE/XML-based platform, Inter-VoiceBrite voicexml gateway, VoiceGenie, Speechworks, BEA etc.
[Layton:] I believe there are two key impediments to market growth. First, voice applications today are delivered as one-off point solutions. As a result, today’s voice applications are inconsistent in the quality of their performance, limited in their scalability and not considered extensible or maintainable by the enterprise. To meet these enterprise needs, it is critical that voice solutions be standards-based and web-architected to deliver consistent performance of voice applications that leverage existing business logic as well as both Web and telephony infrastructure.
"web-architected": this is where all that internet/dotcom *stuff* went - it went into stealth mode, disappeared from public view, and it's now resurfacing in previously closed industries like IVR, causing seismic shifts in how service companies provide back-office applications and data services to their customers. Its fundamental value wasn't in presenting web interfaces to consumers (pace AOL, Amazon and eBay) but in over-hauling/providing the architecture that interfaces and new services could ride on. (And yes, we appreciate the irony of using a website to present this.)
And General Magic have a patent on putting "personality" into the interface, which seems incredible. Layton:
[We hold a patent on] incorporating personality into the design and implementation of human-like voice applications (U.S. patent "Voice User Interface with Personality" #6,144,938 and #6,334,103 B1). According to the approved patent submission, "The term 'personality' as used in the context of a voice user interface can be defined as the totality of spoken language characteristics that simulate the collective character, behavioral, temperamental, emotional and mental traits of human beings in a way that would be recognized by psychologists and social scientists as consistent and relevant to a particular personality type."
Elsewhere, Alcatel's Genesys (call-centre software co) buys Telera (voiceXML platform co).
10:38:47 PM
|
|
[Updated] A list of digital, algorithmic, computer, computational and generative artists, in no particular order.
[via eu-gene list and many other places]
10:33:45 PM
|
|
1. Some people can (scary for the rest of us?)
2. It's a two-way street: facial expressions create as well as display emotion (interesting)
3. how long before security companies use this instead of biometrics for eg airline security?: instead of trying to match an actual face to a watchlist of 100,000s, measure emotion/intent from a "lexicon" of thousands on a face (interesting/scary?)
10:23:45 PM
|
|
Charles Mann's Homeland Insecurity article for The Atlantic (Google-cached as The Atlantic's own link doesn't work for me) is a great overview of Schneier's view of security:
-
Security that depends on secrecy is doomed to fail
-
Cryptography is not enough; niether is any technology-only solution
-
don't rely on single points of security/failure (eg: the firewall which protects only the boundary of your network)
-
build failure into the design: no single failure should catastrophically break the system
-
decisions must made made by people (not computers) at close range
Once humans did the encryption (it was harder to encrypt your messages than to send them plaintext, so many didn't) and everyone hoped that technology would take care of the security (it didn't). Now the reverse is true: today Schneier advocates having humans do the security and technology silently handle the encryption.
Very related to this: Ray Ozzie on complacency immune security, which is built into his Groove:
It's not the individual's fault! It's up to us - the technology industry - to create systems that are complacency immune - that are designed to be complementary to the way that users and administrators really act. And it's up to IT to realize that it's their responsibility - likely to the point of liability - to broadly deploy technology that is configured to be secure in a complacency-immune fashion.
No, it won't be perfect: this is all about risk management. You can't control how people behave - so create an environment in which they do the "right thing" naturally.
Also: Will complacency ultimately net out to liability?
12:11:14 AM
|
|
ZDNet's David Berlind draws up a very challenging list of what he wants from a mobile/PDA/phone.
12:08:43 AM
|
|
Robert Charlton's page size testing chart (with rulers etc) and Golden Mean 101. [via metafilter I think]
12:07:42 AM
|
|
Mike Keith's World of words and numbers: combinatorics, rule-based poems, anagrams, numbers - it's all there. [via Doug Landauer's GIGO]
12:06:41 AM
|
|
© Copyright 2003 rodcorp.
|
|
|
