Day: November 21, 2004

Search Engines: Garbage In, Garbage Out

I am an unabashed Google cheerleader. As far as I’m concerned, Google is one of the crowning achievements of human civilization — if you know what you’re doing, almost any question can be answered by Google. Of course, if you don’t know what you’re doing, then using Google is no better than taking lessons from that urban legend spam about how some terminally ill kid wants to set the record for most greeting cards.

A lot of people have taken to bitching about Google, but most of the complaints I see are from people who simply haven’t taken the time to figure out how to use the search engine, or (more frequently) make rookie mistakes that would hurt them regardless of what search engine or offline system they were using for research.

Take Scott Middleton — please. Middleton is offered up by the Register’s resident anti-Google nutjob, Andrew Orlowski, as a prime example of just how unreliable Google and other search engines are. But Middleton’s problem is actually his own ignorance about what he is searching for.

Middleton wanted to see what sort of information about World War II he could track down, so he typed in “Guadal Canal” in Google and, not surprisingly, received very poor search results in return. Middleton concludes that it is shameful that there should be such poor search results for such a key World War II battle.

Except, there was no battle of “Guadal Canal.” There was, however, a battle of “Guadalcanal.” If you search Google on the correct name of the battle, you will find very helpful links in the first 10 results, including a chronology of the battle, complete with maps and other information.

Is it Google’s fault that Middleton thinks that Guadal Canal is some sort of canal system, instead of knowing that Guadalcanal is the name of small island in the Pacific?

No, but even so, Google tries to compensate for its users’ ignorance. If you search on “Guadal Canal,” Google helpfully asks “Did you mean Guadalcanal?” So even if, like Middleton, you don’t know the first thing about World War II battles, Google will step in and try to set you straight.

At some point you have to ask the user to resort to some sort of common sense or basic attention to detail. If people like Middleton want information about Sony, but search on Sanyo, there’s not much that even the best system can do to help.

Garbage in, garbage out.

Source:

Our kids deserve better than a Google™ future. Andrew Orlowski, The Register, September 20, 2004.

What NBA Fans Really Want to Know about Suspensions

Now that David Stern has decided Ron Artest will have the rest of the season to promote his rap album, ESPN has fabulous coverage of the question that all true NBA fans are asking — how will the suspensions affect my fantasy league?

I imagine people counting on Artest will be angry enough at the suspension to throw some video monitors around, or maybe ask for a few weeks off to focus on the fantasy league in the wake of this disaster.

Source:

Fantasy Spin: Suspensions hit hard. ESPN, November 21, 2004.

The UN’s Oil-for-Terrorists Program

The Associated Press reported earlier this week that Saddam Hussein was able to divert millions of dollars from the United Nations’ oil-for-food program in order to use that money to pay off the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. Which, of course, is impossible since we know that Hussein never supported terrorism and was no imminent threat to anyone.

According to the AP,

The former Iraqi president tapped secret bank accounts in Jordan — where he collected bribes from foreign companies and individuals doing illicit business under the humanitarian program — to reward the families up to $25,000 each, [U.S. Congressional] investigators told The Associated Press.

Hussein may have been able to divert more than $21 billion from the oil-for-food program.

First, this illustrates that claims that the sanctions were causing humanitarian problems in Iraq were a complete sham. Hussein had plenty of opportunities to meet the basic needs of his people but, like other tyrants before him, chose his own interests — and those of terrorists — over his people’s.

Second, this and other ongoing scandals provide further examples of what a joke the United Nations is. From having Sudan head up the UN’s main human rights body, to allowing Hussein to divert UN-administered funds for terrorism, to the complete charade that is the UN’s efforts to stop genocide in Sudan, the UN has absolutely zero credibility.

Third, contrary to some pundits I’ve seen on cable news this weekend, this revolution does provide further evidence that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was the correct course of action. Certainly the United States was wrong on the major detail it hyped — the presence of easily deployable weapons of mass destruction — but certainly U.S. policy makers have been more than vindicated on the larger picture that Iraq was a major threat to the Middle East and the world, and would have only grown to become a bigger threat if it had not been dealt with.

A few weeks ago I ran across an academic study suggesting that the Iraq war was partially responsible for the decline in suicide bombings that Israel has experienced over the last couple years (obviously a big part of that decline is also the security fence, and I didn’t really look at the study close enough to see how they handled confounding variables like that). But I don’t think you need a study to realize that the world is better off without a government that openly solicited and funded terrorism.

Sources:

Probe: Oil funds paid for bombers. Desmond butler, Associated Press, November 17, 2004.

Iraq oil corruption ‘tops $21bn’. The BBc, November 16, 2004.

Mixed Reaction to UK Efforts to Stop Extremists

The British government this month announced that it would seek to give police unprecedented powers to crack down on extremist animal rights activists who engage in acts of harassment and intimidation. At the same time, though, the Royal Society complained that the Home Office had ignored the concerns of universities in a report on modernizing the nation’s police resources.

The Labor party is proposing amending the Serious Organized Crime and Policing Bill to give police the power to crack down on animal rights harassment and intimidation. According to the Daily Telegraph,

The Bill will give police the power to remove and arrest activists who protest outside or near the homes of people who conduct research, or are linked to it, and their families. They could then be charged and face prison sentences.

An important aspect of the Bill is that officers will be able to arrest or remove people involved in intimidatory protests after the event, without having to catch them in the act. It will also allow officers to ban protesters from returning to the scene for three months.

On the other hand, the Royal Society complained that a recently completed Home Office study on modernizing the UK’s police force mentioned the need to protect scientists at commercial enterprises, but did not included assurance of protection for university researchers.

IC Staines quoted Barry Keverne, chairman of the Royal Society’s Committee on Animals in Research, as saying,

There are scientists in universities and other academic institutions throughout the UK carrying out fundamental research on animals which underpins every aspect of the work conducted by industry.

We raised concerns in July that the Home Office gave no explicit assurances that university scientists would be afforded the same protection from animal extremists as those working in business and industry. Worryingly, the Home Office’s latest consultation on modernizing the police has not sought to correct this glaring omission.

Scientists carrying out research on animals in universities suffer the same kind of harassment from animal extremists as those working in industry yet the Government appears not to recognize this.

The proposed change in handling intimidation and harassment by activists is a good sign, but the UK government still seems to be reacting to the activists in an extremely haphazard way. Certainly elements of the government, such as Patricia Hewitt and Caroline Flint, seem to grasp the danger posed by animal rights extremists, but that doesn’t seem to have translated into any sort of cohesive, coordinated plan for dealing with the problem.

Sources:

Scientists to be protected from animal activists. Toby Helm, Daily Telegraph, November 13, 2004.

Risk list ‘ignores universities’. IC Staines, November 15, 2004.