Categories
Connecting Internet

Fool you fool you

I never thought I would get to the point of welcoming emails offering to enlarge either my penis or breasts, to set me up with a single in my area, to show me girls with big boobies, or my friends from Nigeria with wonderous opportunities.

Email after email, alternating:

Thanks!
Details
My Details
Your Details
Your Application
Wicked Screensaver
That Movie
Thank You!

You access your account and you see that you have 10,50, 125, 600 emails waiting and you think of the notes from friends that might be included, or perhaps an interesting comment or two on your writing, but no, all you get is email after email with:

Thanks!
Details
My Details
Your Details
Your Application
Wicked Screensaver
That Movie
Thank You!

You hunt carefully among the dross but no glimmer of gold; or if it’s there, you can’t see it because your mind numbs from email after email with:

Thanks!
Details
My Details
Your Details
Your Application
Wicked Screensaver
That Movie
Thank You!

You hope, but the messages chant out “Fool you!” “Fool you!” At the end of the day, oddly, you feel more lonely than if you hadn’t received any email at all.

Categories
Connecting

How communication fails

I need to finish my “Semiotics of I” essay with its discussion of URIs, representations, and self (“I am linked, therefore I am”). However, the weather saps my energy as we enter our fifth day of hot weather alerts. Rather than profound writing on web esoterics, I’ll be happy if I can actually manage to get my clothes to the laundry room this morning.

Speaking of semantics, interesting thread over at the Pie/Echo/Atom syntax email list. The thread started innocently enough with Simon Willison:

 

Tim just mentioned a mandatory order for the <issued>, <modified> and <created> elements, hence my question. Will the final Atom specification include text along the lines of “client implementations MUST reject Atom feeds if they are invalid”.

The thread then spiraled wildly into discussions of well-formed XML versus badly formed HTML, sensible suggestions interspersed with the geek equivalents of “Yo dog’s a bitch and so’s your mama”.

However, a couple of comments arose on the thread that are worth yanking out of geekland and talking about openly. The first has to do with validity of data, not just validity of syntax. The second has to do with error notification.

One suggestion being circulated is that when an aggregator tries to consume an invalid Pie/Echo/Atom syndication feed, an email or some other notice is sent to the producer of said feed, telling them to fix their broken feed. This sounds feasible until you start looking at what happens in the real world.

For many webloggers, the feeds we produce are ones we’ve added to our tools following one person or another’s instructions. Most people provide the feed primarily because they’ve been asked to and have only a small understanding of what the template tags and the XML means. Many of us have tweaked our feeds, such as my removal of the content encoded element because I don’t publish my content in its entirety. Any one of these actions can introduce errors.

Now, consider the scenario: your feed is accessed by let’s say 100 aggregators, because you have 100 people subscribe to your feed. Each aggregator accesses the feed once per hour. Do the math: exactly how many email messages are going to be generated in one single day based on one simple easy to do mistake? I wasn’t aware that spam is an effective tool for helping people correct their mistake.

Simon Willison recognized this as a problem:

There’s also the problem of what could amount to a distributed DoS on anyone with a lot of traffic who accidentally invalidates their feed. Can you imagine if someone with a thousand subscribers dropped an unescaped ampersand in to their Atom feed? Within the hour they would have 1,000 error reports to wade through (assuming all aggregators followed the report-error part of the standard).

However, Simon then proposed acceptance of another idea:

A better practical solution is probably to follow Bill Kearney’s example in having a big directory of Atom feeds which publically flags any that are broken, gently embaressing the owner in to fixing the feed.

What did Bill Kearney say? The following:

Ignorance we can help with decent documentation and friendly validators.
Laziness we can combat with a rigorous validator and, frankly, fear of exposure.
Should folks find themselves desparate to remain ignorant and lazy, well,
they’re more than welcome to use a spec that better suits them. It’s been my
experience, however, that by educating people and setting good examples they dotend to come around..

This is probably the first time I’ve ever heard ‘embarrassment’ and ‘fear of exposure’ used as effective solutions to a technical problem.

Tim Bray wrote an essay on this, but he’s confused the types of error handling, as others in the list have done, and that leads me to my next and more serious concern: validating the data rather than validating the syntax. Asserting that the syntax is valid and well-formed XML is one thing; but start validating the data delimited with the syntax, and that’s where the problems are going to arise.

Sam mentions that the Pie/Echo/Atom validator has now been extended to check for dates:

Recently, the validator was improved to check for dates like February
30th. Within days, a feed was caught with this problem.

Well, that’s cool – but what does this have to do with the syntax? What if I want to generate a feed that has February 30th, as a joke or because I’m feeling contrary. No harm to the Pie/Echo/Atom syntax, is there? Not even the RDF Validator – and we all know that RDF is complex and just full of meaning – checks the data contained within the syntax requirements.

Scott Johnson suggests we go even further because of a misuse of the language tag. He writes:

Something like 50+% of asian weblogs are set to english when they display kanji.

There are linguistic algorithms that could be put into the validator as well as a user level prompt that asks them “Is this text in english” and if they answer No, it could deny the validation.

So when is technically correct but lying invalid?

Lying? After reading this I immediately went to my RSS 2.0 syndication template and changed the language to mn – Mongolian. Why? Because I’m both arbitrary and contrary. In other words, I’m a typical technology user.

Head’s up Alpha Geeks, you forgot one rule, one important lesson: know your customers. Don’t assume that the recipient of the ‘bad feed’ email is going to be a commercial feed provider, or someone who even gives a shit whether the feed is accurate or not – they’re only providing it because they were asked. Additionally, don’t assume that your rules over the syntax of the feed bleed over into imposing rules on the data of the feed, outside of those that are essential for the syntax. The more rules you add to Pie/Echo/Atom, the more rules are going to be broken.

(By the way – PEAW? You all are using a word that looks suspiciously like “pugh” for a name now?)

Categories
Connecting Photography

Fight or flight

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

The summer heat and lack of rains lowered the Meramec to the point where I could scramble down its banks tonight and walk along the river bed. The hill leading down was steep and rough and a year ago I wouldn’t have tried it, but days of walking, always on the look out for a new angle for a photograph have increased my agility.

Among the rough stones small frogs, no bigger than a beetle or a dime, were hoping away from me as fast as they could, some jumping into the river to avoid me – becoming a real treat for the surprisingly large fish along the edge. I felt bad that my shadow was triggering their instinctive flight response, but I imagine that the known terror was less frightening than the unknown. Can’t fight instincts – animals react to threats either by running, or by turning and standing to fight. Flight or fight is the name of the game.

riveredge.jpg

I tried to take a picture of one of the tiny frogs, but it didn’t come out well. No loss, though, because it was fascinating just to see them, to explore what would normally be under water. It’s experiences like this that make me so glad that my photography has forced me into situations that I would normally have avoided. What adventures I’ve had and what beauty I’ve seen because of this insane desire to find the perfect angle for the perfect shot.

I started taking photographs seriously in January 1991 when I purchased my first Nikon 8008, as an incentive to quit smoking. I’d smoked for years and had developed a cough that was getting progressively worse. When I woke up one morning and coughed so hard I spit up blood, we knew something was seriously wrong. After I had lung X-Rays, the doctor quietly told me that the results weren’t definitive, but there was some evidence in the film that could indicate emphysema, especially in light with the other symptoms. I would need to have more detailed tests, but one thing was certain – I would have to quit smoking.

The nicotine patch was fairly new then and she prescribed a series of them for me, but I knew that I was going to have to fight the addiction on my own if I was going to be successful at quitting where I hadn’t been before. To give myself something to occupy my time, and hands, I bought the camera.

The doctor warned me that my cough wouldn’t go away quickly, and regardless of what they found, it would probably be years before I’d stop having problems. Still, I managed to quick smoking with only minimal damage to those nearest and dearest to me. In addition to the photography, I also started walking and then hiking to help deal with the to-be-expected weight gain that comes with giving up cigarettes.

Odd thing is, my condition improved drastically. Within three days, I was no longer coughing hard enough to see stars. Within a month I could breath in and not fall down on the ground coughing. By the summer, I was going for days, weeks even, without coughing once, especially as we cleaned all traces of the cigarette smoke from the house. The doctor was more than pleased – she was stunned by the rapid improvement. And puzzled. The additional tests did show some lung deterioration, but not enough to generate the original coughing. This paired with my rapid recovery ended up being a bit of a medical mystery.

More tests and discussions with other doctors and the final finding was that I had developed a severe allergic reaction to cigarette smoke. Allergic to cigarettes and smoking – can you believe it? Consider being allergic to ragweed or cat dander and then waking up every morning and breathing from a bag full of it. That’s what I was doing.

I traded all of that for a few extra pounds, and a love of hiking and photography I have to this day.

riverlowerlight.jpg

Returning to the topic of this essay, this fight or flight. Earlier the frogs reacted in fright and escaped me only to become dinner; but I could have just as easily been a predator bird and the fish in the river replete except the odds weren’t in the tiny frogs favor. Earlier still, I fought for life, as we all do when faced with a challenge to our seeming immortality, but in my case the odds were in my favor. In both situations, instinct took over, guiding us into fight or flight depending on the challenge and the prize. The rest of the time, though, we’re on our own.

I have never successfully figured out when I should fight the good fight and when I should walk away. One time I’ll stay to fight to the bitter end, all dignity and umbrage, only to have others come up to me afterwards and ask me what was I thinking? Why the hell didn’t I just walk away? Why did I rise to the bait?

Other times I beat what I consider to be a dignified retreat from the battles only to be faced with scorn from those who see my walking away to be nothing more than throwing my hands up in the air, and giving up.

moreriveredge.jpg

Earlier this week, in comments over at another weblog I got into a discussion about how one deals with aggressive people. Not just aggressive people – people that can be abusive, people that can be ‘acerbic’, yes that’s the word. Normally, I’d link to the post and the comments and re-print significant quotes from both; however, I’ve done this is the past with topics similar to this, and doing so brings others, willing or no, into this conversation and the focus becomes these people and the relationships between these people, when that’s not what this is all about. With respect, this is about knowing when to fight and when to walk away.

It’s a deep part of my nature not to back down from a fight, and I’ve written before of this failing or strength, depending on your view. I also have a temper, though this is something I’ve learned over the years and wasn’t born with.

(I once worked with another woman, years ago, who said I was great to work with, but needed to learn to be more aggressive. If I gave you her name, would you send her flowers or stones?)

Getting into a fight, a nasty one not a good, challenging debate, can leave you tired and discouraged and there has been times when I have walked away, sometimes with grace, sometimes less so. In these situations, I congratulate myself on not ’stooping’ to the protagonists level, only to be chastised for not standing my ground. Or worse – rising to another’s bait and rather than respond with dignity I respond with anger and storm out, and as a consequence, lose respect.

I’ve thought long about the discussion I was apart of, earlier this week, and one thing that I realized from it is that flight is not an option for me – not in life, not with my beliefs, political and otherwise, and not in my field. Most of the people I associate with in one manner or another are people who don’t suffer gladly those who walk away at the first sign of aggression, no matter how unjustified the aggression and how ugly its manifestation. More importantly, these people are also not of a mind come to my aid in a battle of my own joining, because aside from a few of us, we’re on our own in these things.

That latter has been the toughest for me because of my expectations of a friend coming to my defense; the loyal friend I can send in as my Champion to do to dirt the knave who would besmirch and sully my good name. What a rude awakening to find out that my friends either think I should take care of my own battles, as if I’m a capable, intelligent, and responsible adult; or they disagree with my joining the fight in the first place. I have, at times, found myself wishing for a sycophant or two to call my own in trying times, but I dare say this is counter-productive to my emotional growth.

The frog, the shadow, and the fish in the river. I should write another parable using this cast of characters, but for now, another photo as I continue my contemplations.

halo2.jpg

Categories
Connecting

Breaky Parts

My roommate flies in tonight and I pick him and the friend that traveled with him up at the St. Louis airport. However, he called to say the flight from Portland to Chicago was going to be late, and I’ll need to use the online airline system to track the flight, see if he makes the connection to St. Louis. Unfortunately, just, after he hung up, the internet connection went dead.

I dig around and find a phone number for the airline and call the flight status line. Instead of a person, I get a recording, one of those that ask you to say your options.

“Please enter your flight number”

“693″

“That’s flight 893 on August 12th. Is this correct?”

“No”

“I’m sorry. Please speak your flight number again.”

“6 9 3″

“That’s flight 69C. Is this correct?”

“No!”

“I’m sorry. Please speak your flight number again.”

“6 9 3!”

“I’m sorry, but I couldn’t understand you. Could you repeat the number please.”

“6 9 3!”

“That’s flight 893. Is this correct?”

“Shit!”

“I’m sorry, but that’s not a valid flight number. Would you like to speak to a company representative?”

As I was waiting for a company representative, the Internet connection came back on and I could look up the flight. Due to flight congestion, the plane is late, and they’ve missed their connecting flight. Now I wait to hear when they’re coming in. I wonder if they’ll be in before or after my nightly fire alarm beep test?

All I’ll say, is never piss off the Little People.

Categories
Connecting

The authoritarians

Though I edited the post that led to the comment, I did want to promote what Joel said here to the forefront, because I think it’s worth being highlighted:

A few people are so intense that they fail to think through processes. It may take years before a simple reform takes place because these power brokers don’t want to be bothered or they want to build in obstacles to prevent the redelineation of a structure that they built and that they hold precious.

It’s authoritarianism at its most subtle that you’re facing, Shelley. Putting a system in place and then never, ever really considering how it might be rethought to allow for more input from others. It’s the creation of a priestly class (think electoral college) which exists primarily to prevent radical change. Often, however, it turns into a tool for those wishing to promote a radical change that most people don’t want.

“Hysterics” is a buzzword used by some authoritarian types for anything that stops them cold in their tracks and asks that they think again. Stiff people accustomed to using stiff language use the accusation of emotion to attempt to make others think that they are dispassionate. The truth is they rattle easily and they don’t want you to know this. So, unless you are up all night and unable to put this stuff out of your mind, their labels are likely nothing more than a projection of the turmoil they feel inside of themselves when you suggest leveling the playing field, changing the way that decisions are made and, maybe, the players.

In particular the statement, stiff people accustomed to using stiff language use the accusation of emotion to attempt to make others think that they are dispassionate. I would expand on this that the same people use accusations of emotion in order to undercut what another is saying – to lessen the value.

This is the battle I face and have faced in the technology world. When I get angry, I’m accused of being ‘overly emotional’ or ‘hysterical’ where men are just accused of being hot headed, and though it’s subtle, there is a difference between the two. And this difference becomes very, very frustrating.

I was also told this week, though kindly and well meant, that I have a ‘my way or the highway’ approach to many of these discussions – that when I get pushback, I leave. Guilty. Guilty as charged, especially lately. But it’s not because I’m being disagreed with, or I’m not getting ‘my way’ and I’m pouting – it’s because I see this subtle or not so subtle shift happen again, and I just don’t want to continue the fight.

I’d rather just go for a walk or a drive and take photos and write stories. But that’s a cop out, isn’t it? Because if I leave these technology efforts, especially here in the weblogging work – the discussions such as those on the current weblogging metadata and RSS and others of these nature – there will be no other woman involved. No other woman.

What’s wrong with this picture?

Joel said:

It’s authoritarianism at its most subtle that you’re facing, Shelley. Putting a system in place and then never, ever really considering how it might be rethought to allow for more input from others.

That’s what this is all about, isn’t it? We create this open means of publication, where anyone can be heard. And then we constrain it with rules and regulations – mustn’t forget the links, m’dear – and elect kings and queens and become so many bobbing cats in a row, agreeing with everything they say, ready to tromp on any who disagree. The ‘echo bloggers’ I’ve heard about so much this week.

(Which is kinda funny because I just echoed the bloggers who talked about echo bloggers who… never mind. )

No answers. Back to work.