Trying Out Fiverr

Thought I'd give fiverr a try, so I ordered a gig to convert the CLIPS application icon to a vector drawing. This was the original icon at full scale:



And the vector drawings received from the gig at various scales:





Pretty good and affordably priced.

Affordable Health Care Followup 2015

It’s been more than a year since I blogged about the Obamacare reforms that allowed me to easily compare health care plans and switch to a better deal. This year my monthly premium rose from $543 to $640 (I'm not eligible for subsidies). That's still considerably less than the $1022 my old plan was going to charge me. My current plan is just as good if not better than my old plan. I've been able to use the same doctors and my prescription costs have been reduced. As of 2015, the Affordable Care Act has still made my health care more affordable.

Stack Overflow Easter Egg

Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth

There’s a reason you should take information found on the internet with a grain of salt. While researching citations for the CLIPS wikipedia article, I came across this post on the comp.lang.lisp group:

Look around on the net for CLIPS. I think it ports to Common Lisp fairly easily, but I could be wrong about that.

CLIPS is basically a free version of ART*Inference, which was the Automated Reasoning Tool developed by Inference Corporation. Inference, however, did some things that seem, in hindsight, to indicate terminal stupidity. They had NASA as a client, and NASA developed mission-critical software using ART (IIRC it had something to do with the shuttle’s landing gear deployment system). But Inference formed a partnership with Sun and quit providing DOS/Windows versions of their software. Meanwhile NASA had a budget office to satisfy and had to buy all their computers from the same low-bid source, which meant they could only get Intel-compatible machines.

This resulted in NASA having mission-critical software written in a language that was only available on the computers they weren't allowed to buy. After a certain amount of wailing and gnashing of teeth, what it boiled down to was that they were legally able to hire programmers to implement the language on “standard” hardware, but they weren't legally able to buy the “nonstandard” hardware. Within a few months they had enough of the language running to handle their mission-critical software, and as a taxpayer-sponsored effort, it was released to the public.

This put Inference between a rock and a hard place, since a free version of their main product, which ran on much cheaper hardware than their partner would allow theirs to, was now available.

I love this post. It’s more fiction than fact, yet the manner in which it’s stated and specific details give it an air of credibility. The part about the shuttle landing gear deployment system is implausible for a number of reasons, but certainly makes the origin story so much more dramatic. Oh my, if we can’t deploy our landing gear expert system, the shuttle pilot will never know when to flip the landing gear switch. Wailing and gnashing of teeth, indeed!

A subsequent post in the thread corrects many of the inaccuracies relating to ART, but echoes a similar explanation for the origin of CLIPS:

In the mid-80's, NASA decided to fly expert systems, particularly on the space shuttle, and required a system that would run on PC's or some other kind of tiny embedded machines, which had memory limitations at the point that were fairly tough for a lisp-based system (remember 640K limits?). 

The actual origin of CLIPS is disappointingly mundane. There was no directive from the highest echelons of NASA management to create a tool for deploying mission critical shuttle software. CLIPS started as a small internal project at the Johnson Space Center in just one of several groups working with artificial intelligence. It was originally conceived as an intermediate step between the existing commercial tools and a low cost replacement tool that could promote widespread use of expert system technology. As events transpired, in addition to being an intermediate step, CLIPS ended up being the replacement tool as well.

ART was a powerful tool, but it was also expensive, costing tens of thousands of dollars. You could buy a copy of CLIPS for $250 and install it on every computer in your organization. Placing expert system technology on as many computers as possible was the real motivation behind the development of CLIPS.

Textbooks are Crazy Expensive

Doug Kari, writing for Ars Technica, on How an eBay bookseller defeated a publishing giant at the Supreme Court:

Supap’s saga started with an idea for a dorm room sort of business. Since 1978, textbook prices in the US had soared by 700 percent, but the pricing wasn’t uniform worldwide. Publishers charged more in the affluent North American market and less in other regions. They called this practice “market segmentation,” but to many it seemed like price-gouging. Supap discovered this himself: a textbook priced at $50 overseas might cost $100 in the US.

What interested me about this article is that I have some experience from the other side: I’m a textbook author. In 1989, I coauthored the first edition of Expert Systems: Principles and Programming. It was successful enough that we did three additional editions—the fourth was released in 2004—and it’s been translated to Spanish, Russian, and Chinese.

Using my royalty statement from the first half of 2011, I calculated that each domestic sale of Expert Systems generated twenty-four times more income than each international sale. That’s a huge disparity. Domestic royalty rates are twice international rates and the books are twelve times more expensive. It’s not surprising that international sales frequently exceed domestic sales by a factor of five or more.

I used figures from 2011 because that’s the last year I received any royalty income. My publisher filed in 2013 for chapter 11 relief under the bankruptcy code. They’ve since reorganized, but I have to wonder if their pricing strategies are the root of their problems.

iPhone 6 Impressions

The larger screen is nice, but not without its disadvantages. When compared to the iPhone 5, I find it much more difficult to use the phone one handed, particularly when typing. For me it’s an acceptable tradeoff but I’d guess there are many who’d prefer a smaller phone instead. It seems odd that Apple would eliminate one of Android’s competitive advantages (larger screens) and replace it with another (smaller screens). If you want a smaller iPhone, your only option now is to buy last year’s models: the 5s or the 5c. Perhaps next year Apple will also offer an iPhone 6s mini so that you can have both a smaller phone and the newest technology.

This is the first iOS device I've had with Touch ID and it’s sweet. It doesn’t seem like it would be that big of a deal, but being able to unlock your phone with your fingerprint is really convenient. You can register multiple fingerprints: adding both thumbs and my right index finger worked well for me. You can also use it to silence alarms and approve app store purchases.

I haven’t had a chance yet to use Apple Pay, Apple’s mobile payment technology that uses Touch ID, but I’ll be giving it a try in the next couple of weeks when my credit card issuer begins support for it. There’s been a bit of a kerfuffle in the last week as many retailers have disabled all NFC mobile payments (which includes both Apple Pay and Google Wallet) in response to consumers trying to pay using their iPhones.

It turns out these retailers (including CVS and Rite-Aid) want to push their own mobile payment technology called CurrentC—which has yet to be fully released—but it’s already dead on arrival. Apparently there’s one thing that iOS and Android users agree on: only an idiot would use CurrentC.

The CurrentC apps on iTunes and Google Play are invite-only, but they already have thousands of one star reviews (and pretty much only one star reviews). It turns out that people are not very interested in giving up their social security, driver’s license, and bank account numbers just so the merchants can track their spending habits and save on credit card transaction fees. Go figure.

Revolutionary? The Day After

Apple kicked off their new hardware event yesterday with a bizarre live streaming snafu of epic proportions. It was so embarrassing that they’ve perpetually lost their rights to mock the Blue Screen of Death in any way, shape, or form.

After hyping the living daylights out of this event—including a countdown on their web site’s home page and an ABC teaser for a post-event exclusive interview on what was billed as an historic announcement—it was virtually impossible to actually live stream the live stream for the first half hour or so of the event.

And it wasn't just that you got that spinning circle of waiting while the content loaded. There was a bizarre collection of colored bars, error messages, and previously streamed video. And for the brief periods where you could get the live stream, it included a Chinese audio translation.

For a company that likes to meticulously orchestrate its media events, it was a fiasco.

Fortunately, there were no major surprises in what was announced: iPhones with larger screens, a payment system to replace credit and debit cards, and a smart watch. Many of the details had already been leaked, revealed, or rumored in the months and weeks leading up to the event.

Whether you view Apple Pay or Apple Watch as revolutionary depends upon whether you viewed the iPod, iPhone, or iPad as revolutionary. Apple was not first to market with any of these product categories, but arguably their entry into these markets redefined customer expectations. I happen to believe that creating a usable device—the innovation of how the parts are integrated and work together—trumps being first to market with a new technology embedded in a poorly designed piece of crap.

Predictably, there was the standard refrain for new Apple hardware. It's too expensive. It’s too big. Its battery life is too short. It’s already been done.

To be fair, a price starting at $350 is a lot of money to pay for what is essentially an iPhone accessory, and the battery life—never mentioned in the presentation—appears to be about a day. I think I’ll wait for the second or third generation before I consider buying one of these.

But that doesn’t mean we didn’t see the beginning of something big yesterday. If the design of the Apple Watch is significantly better than its competitors, then there will be no shortage of early adopters. Don’t forget that the cost of the first generation iPod started at $400 and the first generation iPhone at $499. If the first generation Apple Watch is successful we’ll see subsequent generations that are cheaper, smaller, more efficient, and more powerful.

I’ve never seen anyone making a purchase in a store by waving their phone or watch at a checkout device. Whether or not this becomes a common occurrence with Apple devices in the next few years will be the best indicator of whether we witnessed something groundbreaking yesterday.

Revolutionary?

Tuesday Apple will announce new iPhones and presumably their next big thing: the iWatch, iBracelet, or iWhatever.

I wore a watch for decades until the ubiquity of devices displaying the time and date made me realize I was wearing it more out of habit than need. At first it felt a bit weird not wearing it, like I wasn’t completely dressed, and I do occasionally miss being able to glance at my wrist to see the time, but I've now grown used to having both wrists bare.

So what would Apple need to announce in order for me to slap something on my wrist again?

In the immediate future, probably not much. My first iPod was a 2nd generation iPod Touch in 2008, seven years after the first iPod was available; my first iPhone was an iPhone 4 in 2010, three years after the original; and I got an iPad 2 in 2011, a year after the first model came out. I like and primarily use Apple products, but I’m not an early adopter (although my activities as an iOS developer give me an excuse to update my hardware more frequently than the typical user).

I can’t see spending a few hundred dollars on a smart watch/bracelet that displays text/email notifications from my phone, counts my steps, and/or monitors my blood pressure. No doubt there are some who would find these features useful, but we’ve already seen these type of features in smart watches from Apple’s competitors.

And I certainly don’t need another device that needs to be charged on a daily basis. I already have to carry a bag full of cables with me whenever I travel, so if I'm putting something on my wrist it had better stay charged for at least a couple of days.

Typically Apple doesn’t enter a hardware category unless it believes it’s created a superior or unique product that consumers will want. Perhaps what they’ll be announcing Tuesday is something that’s different or much better designed than anything we’ve seen before. Something revolutionary. A product that nobody knew they wanted until they saw it.

In any event, since Apple is perpetually doomed, it won’t matter whether what’s announced Tuesday is revolutionary or not.

Affordable Health Care

When I left my job working for a company to become a software consultant working for myself, one of the first things I did was get an individual health insurance policy. Since my premiums aren’t subsidized, I’m fully aware of the true cost I’m paying and in the last eight years that cost has risen 333%:

With most of the rate increases I’ve gotten in the past, I’ve also received this bit of ominous advice from my insurance carrier:

You may qualify for other plans at different rates. Before you make a decision, you may want to discuss these alternate plans with us or your broker. If you choose a new plan, we might review your health information again. This might mean a higher rate. And you may not be able to return to your original plan.

So if I understand what they’re telling me, if I try to switch to another health plan to save money, I may end up paying more money for less coverage than what I have now. Thanks, let me think a bit and decide if I want to bend over now or bend over later.

Obtaining health insurance as an individual sucks; you lack the power that a large group has to negotiate reasonable rates for all of its members. I don’t see how any free market advocate can claim that this kind of lock-in—either to a company subsidizing/negotiating your costs or to a plan that can’t be changed without significant risk—is a sign of a competitive environment that will work things out if we just give it a chance. In fact, the opposite is true. In an unregulated free market, insurance companies will naturally exclude those most in need of health insurance in order to maximize their profits.

Long term, I honestly don’t know whether Obamacare is going to ruin the American way of life as we know it; I’ll leave those pronouncements to the politicians and pundits who claim to know everything, but can’t offer a better solution to the current broken system.

Short term, however, it’s going to cut my insurance premiums almost in half. Because I can’t be charged more or denied coverage for preexisting conditions (such as taking statin medication to help keep my cholesterol in check), and the information on the healthcare exchanges makes it much easier to compare plans from different carriers, I was able to find a better deal with a different carrier (keeping the same doctors I was using in my old network).

Only time will tell if there are any gotchas with my new health care plan and perhaps the government’s health care mandates are unsustainable, but from my perspective the Affordable Care Act really has made my health care more affordable.

Full disclosure: I did not vote for Obama in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, but I, for one, welcome our new socialist overlords.

Dear CBS, Huh?

I don’t get it. You give me the distinct impression you couldn’t care less whether I watch your shows or not.

The season finale of Under The Dome was delayed by thirty minutes so the DVR didn’t record the entire episode. After watching what did record, I checked to see if the episode was available from AT&T U-verse on demand. I figured paying a cable bill might give me some perks I wouldn't get if I watched shows over the air for free. I figured wrong. NBC, ABC, and FOX all offer shows on demand. CBS, nada.

Next I tried downloading the CBS iPad app. Under The Dome wasn't available from there either, so I tried streaming it from the web browser on my iPad. I particularly like the way you detect I'm using an unapproved device and don’t make full episodes available.

Apparently, however, my desktop computer is worthy in your eyes—I just had to watch eight minutes of commercials to start where the show ended on the DVR. It was also much more comfortable sitting in front of my work desk rather than reclining in my La-Z-Boy.

And then I had the same problem a few days later. Another nice touch on your part: you change the name of Survivor every season by adding a subtitle, so every season the DVR has to be reprogrammed. Guess who forgot to reprogram the DVR?

So I missed the first episode which I won’t be seeing because, given your attitude, it’s more effort than I can muster.

You seem to think because you're doing better than the other networks in the Big Three, you can call the shots. The truth is you’re just the winner of the losers. The canaries in your coal mine are all dead. The early signs that you need to change the way you provide content have come and gone. It’s the miners who are keeling over now. People like me. The miners may not buy the coal from you, but without them you have nothing to sell.

So here’s some advice from the guy parents point at when warning their children of the dangers of watching too much TV: you’re mistaken if you think your shows are so addictive I’ll jump through hoops to watch them.

And when addicts won’t deal with you because it’s too inconvenient, you’ve got a big problem.

I feel jittery. Good thing I don’t have to wonder whether I can get a fix of Breaking Bad from Netflix.

Changes

When change happens gradually over a long period of time, it’s easy to lose sight of how far you’ve come from where you started. When I first started working with CLIPS in 1985, I used the monkey and banana (MAB) problem as a benchmark for improving performance of the rule engine. The original version had 20 rules, 5 initial facts, and executed 14 rules. To make the program a bit more complex, I added chests and keys so that objects could be locked away and the monkey required additional planning to gain access to them. This extended program had 32 rules, 13 initial facts, and executed 81 rules. It’s a toy problem and today it seems silly that I used it for benchmarking anything, but it was at the time invaluable in improving the performance of CLIPS as well as comparing the performance of various rule engines and hardware platforms. The usefulness of this benchmark is more apparent if you view it as measuring best case performance rather than performance under load as other benchmarks such as Manners and Waltz measure.

In 1986 even the state of the art Automated Reasoning Tool (ART) software running on expensive Lisp machines executed MAB at only 72 rules per second. CLIPS running on a VAX-11/780 clocked in at 16.8 rules per second and OPS5 on this same platform executed 62.3 rules per second. When I first got CLIPS running on an IBM AT, execution speed was less than 1 rule per minute. You read that right—it took over an hour for the monkey to get his hands on the banana. CLIPS dynamically allocates and deallocates memory as it executes and in those days—when memory on PCs was more often measured in KB rather than MB or GB—the memory allocation libraries were often painfully inefficient. It was only after I removed some of the unnecessary allocations/deallocations and had CLIPS cache deallocated memory that I was able to improve the performance to 4.3 rules per second.

Over 25 years later, CLIPS clocks in at well over 100,000 rules per second running MAB on my laptop. Think about that for a minute. That’s over 25,000 times faster. Twenty. Five. Thousand. And most of that, at least for MAB, is attributable to the hardware (and possibly the compiler/operating system), not improvements to CLIPS (which at most might have improved performance for MAB by a factor of 2 to 4 times). Consider that improvement in terms of the problems you can solve today that you couldn’t solve 25 years ago.

And it’s not just that hardware is faster—it’s also cheaper. I was downright ecstatic when I got a Macintosh IIfx in the early 90s at NASA. Programmers hate waiting for code to compile so we always want the fastest computer available. At the time the IIfx was “wicked fast” with a 40 MHz CPU and up to 128 MB of memory. It also had a hefty price of around $10,000 (roughly $16,000 in today’s dollars adjusting for inflation). After I left NASA and was working from home, I bought a Mac clone from Power Computing in 1997 for $4700 (roughly $6700 today). Since that time, my desire to have the fastest computer available has melted away as the lower end computers became fast enough for almost everything I do. The last desktop computer I bought was an iMac in 2009 for $1500 (roughly $1600 today). It came with a 2.66 GHz processor and 4 GB of memory. I upgraded to 8 GB of memory in 2011 for around $115 when I started running Windows in a virtual machine. Occasionally there’s some sluggishness when switching between the virtual machine and Mac OS X—which could probably be fixed by adding more RAM (if alas the computer weren’t already maxed out)—but for the most part this computer still feels new.

Usually after around four to five years, as the operating system and applications introduce new functionality that increasingly taxes the hardware, sluggishness becomes noticeable to the point that it’s easy for me to justify a new computer based on productivity alone. Yet I’m at the point where I usually start thinking about a replacement, but feel no serious need for one. If I feel that way and use a computer most of the day for programming, I wonder how the average consumer feels about replacing their computer when all they do is use it for activities like email and surfing the web. Obviously traditional computers (desktops and laptops) aren’t in danger of extinction, but if I were a company that just made these devices (and not smart phones and tablets), I’d be worried about my long term profitability.

Which gets me back to my original point. We had computers 25 years ago and we have them today, but boy have they changed. With smart phones, we literally walk around with computers having tricorder like functionality in our pockets. What will I be comparing these devices to in 25 years?

The Walls Came Down

Microsoft CEO to retire within the next 12 months:

Microsoft Corp. today announced that Chief Executive Officer Steve Ballmer has decided to retire as CEO within the next 12 months, upon the completion of a process to choose his successor. In the meantime, Ballmer will continue as CEO and will lead Microsoft through the next steps of its transformation to a devices and services company that empowers people for the activities they value most. 

Coincidental timing or the inability to recognize and respond to disruptive innovation?



The Walls Came Down by The Call:

They stood there laughing
They’re not laughing anymore
The walls came down