Face recognition

Will it ring a bell? Speaking of photos of people, MyHeritage.com claims that if you upload your mug it can be matched with a celebrity’s. Sounds like fun, right? After I was forced to register on their site (*ugh*) I started out by trying a half-dozen photos. None produced any accurate matches. I thought the pictures I uploaded were well-known celebrities, which means I’m either very unhip (they claim 3,200 celebrities in their database) or their Cognitec system is absolute proof of how unreliable this form of biometric identification is today (or both). Try it for yourself. Grab a photo of your favorite celebrity, upload it to the system and see if it can recognize them. If that doesn’t work, do you really trust this interface to manage your identity information?

Brad Pitt in disguise

Separated at birth?

Jeremy Piven was matched to Sugar Ray Leonard and Walt Disney. Who would have thought? And if you search their database, you find names like “Agam Rudberg“. Um, who? Is she the same person as Agam Rodberg? More data integrity worries from a system meant to make it less of a concern. I can only hope they do a good job with confidentiality.

The Oxford Project

I used to work for Peter Feldstein in the mid 1990s to help him manage a computer lab for the arts. His work is top-notch and he’s the nicest guy you could ever work for, so it’s great to see him get some well-deserved media attention [1]. His Oxford Project, listed in the Yahoo! most popular news stories today [2], humanizes a part of the world that some people will never be exposed to; it is a brilliant ethnographic tool.

In the current phase of his project, Feldstein has added a new twist, thanks to the help of friend Stephen Bloom, an author and journalism professor at the University of Iowa. Based on interviews, Bloom has crafted short narratives that lend a confessional, poetic and unvarnished dimension to the lives in Feldstein’s then-and-now portraits.

Way to go Peter! I really like reviewing the photos and I wonder if facial recognition technology would accurately predict the changes.

[1] Examples of recent stories:

I expect to see it on the Colbert Report or Daily Show soon.

[2] The BBC has “related” links and other helpful segues on their news pages, but for some reason Yahoo! does not even suggest than there might be an official project website. BoingBoing had to be told by a reader that they should link to the project site, but at least they did so. All very strange, considering the basic concept of hyperlinking versus traditional text…

The Poetry of Programming

While working on some Solaris 10 security recently I ran into an interesting article on the Sun site called The Poetry of Programming, which is an interview with Richard Gabriel, Distinguished Engineer at Sun Microsystems:

Writing software should be treated as a creative activity. Just think about it — the software that’s interesting to make is software that hasn’t been made before. Most other engineering disciplines are about building things that have been built before. People say, “Well, how come we can’t build software the way we build bridges?” The answer is that we’ve been building bridges for thousands of years, and while we can make incremental improvements to bridges, the fact is that every bridge is like some other bridge that’s been built. Someone says, “Oh, let’s build a bridge across this river. The river is this wide, it’s this deep, it’s got to carry this load. It’s for cars, pedestrians, or trains, so it will be kind of like this one or that one.” They can know the category of bridge they’re building, so they can zero in on the design pretty quickly. They don’t have to reinvent the wheel.

But in software, even with something such as Java 2, Enterprise Edition or the Java implementation (or almost any of the APIs we define), we’re rolling out — if not the first — at most the seventh or eighth version. We’ve only been building software for 50 years, and almost every time we’re creating something new. If you look at software developers and what they produce, if you look at their source code, the programs they make, and the designs that they end up creating, there is real variability. And some people are really good and others are not so good.

True, but that is also because software is not heavily regulated or disciplined. Not just anyone can be hired to build a bridge that millions of people will cross in the material world, but on the Internet people who are idealists and hacks can throw anything up and people will use it. I am not being critical of the latter situation, just pointing out that there is a much lower hurdle and so nothing to require the study of prior bridges (and their failures) before building another one. This is further compounded by the intellectual property movement that restricts source from view, whereas every inch of a bridge can be studied in detail.

Writing code certainly feels very similar to writing poetry. When I’m writing poetry, it feels like the center of my thinking is in a particular place, and when I’m writing code the center of my thinking feels in the same kind of place. It’s the same kind of concentration.

Ah yes, the same for all aspects of information technology. Poetry is mastery of a discipline. You might say Microsoft software, thus, is like supermarket checkout tabloids — all glam and glitz and very little to hang your hat on. We already look back at Windows 9x and agree, even Microsoft, that it was a train-wreck of an operating system. And for what it’s worth I met with Microsoft the other day for another review of Vista and a new browser that I’m not even allowed to give details on…let’s just say that some of their developers clearly don’t practice the poetry of programming.

Congolese Voting, Security, and Benefits

The BBC has reported on the security needed to end the civil war and help facilitate the first multi-party vote in the Congo in 40 years:

More than 25m people are entitled to vote, protected by the biggest UN peacekeeping operation in the world.

Over 9,000 candidates are running for parliament.

[…]

The presidential candidates include the four vice-presidents who took office in 2003 in terms of a transitional power-sharing deal.

Three of the four vice-presidents are the leaders of former armed factions.

And as if the political stakes aren’t complicated enough, there is also the problem of actually getting people to the polls to vote:

Election workers in Democratic Republic of Congo are putting the finishing touches to possibly the most complex and challenging elections the world has ever seen.

Helicopters, canoes, motorbikes and porters have been used to transport election material to almost 50,000 polling stations across a country two-thirds the size of western Europe, with just 300 miles of paved roads.

Compared to this effort, can you believe people displaced from the Katrina hurricane in Louisiana were unable to vote? If the Congo can get 25 million people in some of the remotest parts of the world a ballot, then you would think the US could figure it out.

Another report had a cute story about changes happening in terms of people’s sense of risk, which caught my eye:

This is good for the poor jobless youth who are having a fun fair shouting their voices hoarse and riding their bicycles silly, at times daring the UN mission (Monuc) drivers to knock them over.

I hear its big business – if you’re knocked over by a UN car, the dollars that come with the pain are appealing. At least no one was knocked.

This must be a big cultural shift from how the youth interacted with the warring militias. I mean how often did someone challenge a security/military vehicle with the hope to collect benefits from the vehicle’s owner?