Relay #70, Panel F

GoJ and the need for validation.

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Fri, 29 Jul 2011 16:21:00 +0000

Why does the Government of Jamaica feel they need validation from some foreign consulting firm for even the most benign and obvious things? The OUR was charged with the task of overseeing the implementation of number portability since the inception of the incandescent light bulb, and yet all the news we can get from them relates to the hiring a consultant to tell them what they could have easily discerned for far less money, in a far shorter time, using abundant local resources.

It's an ever growing trend. Whether it's a case of needing an outsider to hold their hand and pat them on the head, or simply a "cover your 'ass'ets" strategy, where they feel a foreign consultant grants them indemnity in the event things go south, it's time we move past this phase of inadequacy, start to trust our own technologists and people on the ground, and push ahead with initiatives that have been lingering for years.

I'm truly disturbed.

--
http://www.our.gov.jm - contract award for number portability feasibility study

To reminisce is human

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Mon, 28 Mar 2011 01:09:00 +0000

I wrote this once. Don't hold it against me. http://www.techjamaica.com/content/view/343/51/

Shopping with Alzhemier's

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 23:47:00 +0000

Amazon, I love you, but sometimes I just don't get you. I'm a fairly loyal and frequent Amazon shopper. I can categorically state that I've spent more of my hard and not so hard earned funds with Amazon over the years than I have with any other single retailer in my entire life. I say this to paint a picture about just how well Amazon knows me and my habits. No entity, private, public or otherwise, could make that boast. So I'm sometimes a bit perplexed about how Amazon makes use of that information.

Take one recent purchase; the much hyped and totally worth it Kindle wireless reading device. I opted for the 3G model since $50 for unlimited almost-anywhere data sounded like a pretty good deal. Amazon takes the fact that I've purchased a Kindle (or anything else) to display on subsequent visits, items they think would fit my interest. So imagine my confusion when on my return, the predominant recommendation isn't for a book, perhaps a best seller or an electronic version of a title I already own; it isn't for a nice leather cover; it isn't even for a reading light. Instead it's, get this, a Kindle.

Do Kindle owners generally purchase new Kindles once the smell has worn off the ones they got last week? The question might be relevant, except Amazon does it for the vast majority of things I purchase. My current Amazon homepage is littered with recommendations for sneakers, cell phones, and guitar stands; all recent purchases and all, I would imagine, at least once a year purchases for most people. Unless the end goal is to instill buyer's remorse in their shoppers, I can't see the logic behind this.

Of course, nothing is as simple as it seems. I'm aware that my recommendations come from an algorithm that looks at my shopping and browsing habits, and this could be something specific to me and my eclectic purchasing history, but I can't help but think that with all the stuff Amazon knows about me, and all the things they could predict, they sure do make a mess of the opportunity.

Anonytext for Android

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Sun, 11 Jul 2010 19:58:00 +0000

Anonymous messaging from your Android device. Enjoy.

Microsoft, patents, and a reminder as to why Open Source is "good enough".

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 19:48:00 +0000

Today came word that a US Court of Appeal has denied Microsoft's appeal in a case regarding an XML related patent lawsuit filed by the Canadian company, i4i. The initial injunction handed down in August 2009 claimed that Microsoft had infringed on a patent held by the company and prohibited Microsoft from selling copies of Word 2007 in the US. This move, while appearing draconian and downright silly in nature, is just another example of the dangers of software patents and how it can stifle innovation. This story however isn't about the lawsuit, the injunction, or the denied appeal by Microsoft. This story is about Microsoft's approach to making things right and their choice of words in expressing it.

Today Microsoft issued a press release outlining their plan of action. Of particular note is the following statement:

With respect to Microsoft Word 2007 and Microsoft Office 2007, we have been preparing for this possibility since the District Court issued its injunction in August 2009 and have put the wheels in motion to remove this little-used feature (emphasis mine) from these products.

I don't believe there are many ways of interpreting this statement. Microsoft has, in their own words, pointed out that a particular feature found in one of their products is hardly used by its customers. This obviously isn't a groundbreaking or even unknown fact, but it does bear acknowledgement.

One pervasive complaint when it comes to utilizing Open Source software in place of incumbent proprietary systems has been the often times true observation that Open Source tends to have a smaller feature set. Very few persons in the know would deny this fact, however proponents of Open Source will often times refer to the venerable 80-20 rule: 80% of a system's features are used by only 20% of its users. What this simply means is that a smaller feature set, in the grand scheme of things, may have little effect on a user's productivity and in many cases simply contributes to software bloat. Microsoft's statement seems to not only reinforce this notion, but manages to single out a very relevant example.

I hope people can take a simple lesson from this. Certainly a product with millions of dollars spent on R&D will excel in feature count over a F/LOSS variant, but persons should always ask themselves whether these features apply to their particular case and if it's worth the extra money (acquisition, training, maintenance, upgrades) to get them.

I'm not an evangelist of Open Source, I'm an evangelist of knowledge and choice.

Linked List Exclusion

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Wed, 09 Dec 2009 03:22:00 +0000

I wrote this paper for you. Enjoy: Linked List Exclusion.

The Difference

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:53:00 +0000

Turing test at its best. Enjoy:

http://qntm.org/?difference

Achieving AI: Part 1 - The thinking machine

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 21:17:00 +0000

This is an introduction to a series of entries on the topic of Artificial Intelligence. The approach, for better or worse, is more philosophical than academic and is simply a series of vague snapshots of my thoughts on the subject that I hope to express in a coherent manner. Part One begins here...

Ask any John or Jane with a passing interest about how they envisage human-computer interaction in the distant future and many will paint a picture of something akin to the droids in Star Wars or the ship computer in Star Trek: Machines possessing a reasonable understanding of human dynamics even if they themselves struggle to express them (Though I've always viewed that agreed upon hypothetical as impractical. Machines have proven themselves to be very good at expressing what they understand).

By and large we are conditioned into this view by science fiction writers and the like. However one would think that even without such direct influence, we would still hold an expectation of machines being able to understand and relate to us in a similar fashion to humans. After all, sci-fi writers had to get their inspiration from somewhere.

The Holy Grail of AI, if it is to ever be achieved, will be a melding of the mechanical logic of an electronic device coupled with the emotional intelligence of a human being. The question then becomes; what is it that makes us human? What aspect of sentience sets us apart from algorithmically controlled machines and can they be mutually inclusive?

A little self analysis

People often say that what separates them from machines is the ability to make a decision regardless of their current state. Selecting Left instead of Right without consideration to any preconditions and being, in essence, in full control of the decision. However, is any decision we make truly uninhibited? Isn't there, at some level, a point of reference that we must use, even if only as an antithesis, to go Left instead of Right? Aren't our actions just as algorithmically controlled as machines?

The benefit we have in analyzing the 'thought process' of machines is that we are the ones that created it. We have a full picture of all inputs and processes that produce any observed output and can mathematically prove what any variation in the provided input would subsequently produce. We can, as a result, proclaim that machines cannot arrive at any conclusion without following the prescribed steps or some algorithmically controlled mutation of those steps.

Contrast this with our attempts to analyze our own decision making prowess. For the most part we waddle in ignorance. This ignorance has led us to believe that our decisions are, if we so choose, capable of being undefined right up to the point that they are made. But is this really so?

Granted, there may never come a day when when a human or machine will be able to mathematically deduce what your next thought or action will be, however this does not negate the possibility that these thoughts and actions are rule based. Our experiences (memory), immediate environment and culture play a very strong role in enforcing the rules which govern us. The problem is that in many instances these guiding hands are invisible; leading us to think that we and those around us are autonomous. This is a fallacy that we must acknowledge if we are to begin understanding our decision making ability in our efforts to recreate them. What you know, consciously or subconsciously, define your decisions. Any attempt to break form simply creates an inverse of those rules which then continue to define you. Any decision we make, no matter how obscure and random, can be traced back to some base idiosyncrasy. The only thing we lack is the time and insight to fully analyze it.

The discussion could go off into many areas, however I'm simply trying to draw a parallel between how we as sentient beings and machines with simplified logic processing utilize predefined rules to come to decisions.

Once we begin to appreciate this, the problem then becomes the further development and refinement of a machine's decision making process. What are the factors that make our processing so much more human?

If we can do it, why can't they?

It's one of the pillars of Artificial Intelligence and a major step into having human like machines. A sufficiently advanced artificial intelligence, to transparently interact with humans, must know our nuances. But how do we achieve this? What is required to truly understand human emotion. How does a machine discern that a statement that begins with "a paster in a church" is an axiom but "a paster in a bar" is the beginning of a punchline? This may not be as difficult as one may initially believe once you realize that it comes down to the very same things that will help it make any other decision; experience, environment and culture.

As far as experience goes, it's easy enough. The one thing a machine has no problem with is memory, and as resources such as the Internet continue to grow and the semantic web continues to develop, soon machines will not only have to rely on its own prior experiences, but on anyone that has chosen to contribute to this vast pool of knowledge. The line of separation when it comes to memory is that humans utilize our memory in a very inefficient manner. With the exception of a few savants we are incapable of perfect memory and many times unable to recall needed information in a given time. In fact, out ability to recall information is severely impacted by our ability to understand it. Think of a sentence spoken to you in your mother tongue, followed by one of equal length in an unknown foreign language. The known sentence can be recalled much easier because you're able to ascertain the meaning behind the statement, while the other can only be recalled via phonetics; a noticeably more difficult task. This may be one of our humanizing factors. Should we try and create a machine which duplicates this imperfection? Do we even want to?

The environment aspect is simply an issue of context. Different things take on different meanings depending on where you are and what you're doing. As experiences grow, so does the ability to decipher what is the appropriate interpretation of received input. The ability to identify and process a myriad or environmental factors is key. Sensors need to be broad enough to gather big picture information while acute enough to pick up contextual discrepancies.

Culture is a lot more complex than the previous two requirements. So complex in fact it may not be possible for humans to implement it. The idea of culture touches on a very interesting topic as far as machine intelligence goes. For a machine culture to exist, there must be a machine society. This need not be a physical manifestation as it is for human communities, but simply a medium for multiple artificial entities to be aware of and interact with each other. This culture will need to evolve over time as more entities become aware and begin to share experiences and knowledge of their environment.

The sharing of information, depending on the particular manifestation of the exchange medium, may lead to a very interesting and needed evolutionary step for true AI: assimilation. If machines, with the exception of their physical housing, are to be seen as information patterns which include their rules for input processing, then the sharing of information between entities quickly becomes the merger of entities. In essence, a new entity is created that represents a coming together of two or more different information patterns. Redundant processing instructions would be excluded based on which serves best in the current environment; this knowledge drawn from its assimilated memory. It doesn't take much imagination to see where such a development could potentially and, if science fiction writers are to be believed, eventually lead.

From understanding our own humanity, we can then begin the process of recreating it. From recreating it we may stumble on ways to improve it; creating something that not only understands and mimics us, but surpasses us. Moving past human evolution and instead creating a Human Revolution. The thinking machine may indeed be our next step.

LIME 3G vs. Claro 3G: And the winner is... Digicel?

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Wed, 08 Jul 2009 13:43:00 +0000

Here in Jamaica a war in looming on the mobile Internet landscape. Claro had fired the first salvo when they launched their 3G network after purchasing MiPhone. Now LIME has entered the arena with their own offering.

I think, or rather hope, Digicel is quietly thanking LIME for their recent roll. Why? Because the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Since Claro has come on the scene, in my humble opinion, they haven't really given any compelling reason to move to their network save one, their 3G data services. Sure, Claro has great features and call plans, but unless you make a wholesale move with all your friends and business associates, you wont be realising any real benefits any time soon. However 3G is a personal benefit that you can reap rewards from the day you sign up.

Whether or not that was the intent, 3G serves as a bottom-up approach to grabbing market share. If you can get enough people unto your network solely for 3G, it's not far fetched to assume that a sizable chunk of those users may want to make a call or two, or simply not want to have multiple devices (whether mobile phone or dongle), when a single device can perform all their needed functions. Therefore 3G users are all potential converts to Claro's voice services.

Now along comes LIME who, while still the second largest mobile carrier in the island, really hasn't had any fanfare to speak of over the last few months (years?), but have now changed that with the launch of their own 3G data service. Claro is gunning for the incumbent, and 3G is how they could, or rather would, have done it. Now that LIME has rolled out 3G however, the landscape has changed, and it now gives Digicel the high ground.

As of this writing, LIME has, hands down, the better 3G offering; both in terms of price and speed. This coupled with the proliferation of 3G capable devices already on LIME's network (read Blackberry), not to mention the free 3G dongle that users receive if they sign up for a 2 year contract, LIME is well suited to become the 3G provider of choice if that's what you're looking for from a carrier. And this is the death knell for Claro. Their hail mary, should their call plans not win users over, would have been their 3G data services. If users that just want data now have more compelling reasons to sign up with LIME, this takes away Claro's only competitive edge.

LIME is doing Digicel the favor of ensuring Claro remains uncompetitive. LIME is the evil Digicel already knows and, for the most part, tamed. Claro is still the loose canon and an unknown variable, and this attack by LIME only serves Digicel's purposes.

You can and should expect a response from Digicel sometime in the near future, but rest assured that there's silent appreciation of the work LIME is doing in lieu of their own battle plan. Digicel wont be losing customers to Claro any time soon.

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 13:27:00 +0000

While following the underlined blue text I kept finding while doing some reading on netbooks, I eventually came across this blog post written by Brandon LeBlanc a few days ago. The whole thing is the usual Microsoft self stroking about how great they are, but there were a couple gems which stood out to me, and one in particular which actually brought me to the post:

"Windows now account for a whopping 98% of all small notebook PCs sales at retail in the US." [Emphasis his]

Lets assume for the sake of argument that the number stated above is properly researched and correct. This might lead you to think that the netbook industry, which is still in wrapping plastic, has been a slam dunk for Microsoft. The truth however, is always hidden in the detail.

I'm a proud owner of an ASUS 1000HE. It's everything they advertised and then some. I got it on Amazon a few weeks ago and while doing my research I realised than Amazon and other e-tailers, gave me a myriad of options to customize my machine: I could get it in black, or in blue.
I didn't have a choice about the system specs or, and here's the kicker, the Operating System. If I wanted this machine I had to fork over the Windows Tax whether I was planning on using Windows or not.

Now I've read stories about how persons have taken the conservative approach to the Windows Tax, and have gone to great lengths to actually get their money back (Something about the EULA entitling you to return the product if you don't agree. I'm not sure, I haven't read it myself). It seems that whenever someone has been able to actually redeem their funds, it was a big enough deal for them to write about it and in some cases break out the camera and post a few snaps. Now being in Jamaica that was not really an option for me. Maybe it was, but the required time and effort certainly wouldn't have made it viable and I wasn't trying to take a principled stand. I simply downloaded my oh so sexy copy of Kubuntu 9.04, loaded it up, and went on my way.

Now imagine my chagrin when I come across the statistic quoted above and the realisation dawned on me that I, and many, MANY others that chose to use Linux instead of Windows on our netbooks, have been included in that number.

Linux has very steady footing in the netbook world. Microsoft would rather people not know that. They have, as they have always done, gone to great lengths to court OEMs and retailers into giving Windows as the only option on their netbooks, or at the very least, make it a 4 minute mile if you want to actually find a model that does not bare the Windows branding. They've even been successful in wooing ASUS; the company that broke ground in the netbook revolution. In fact at a recent news conference shared with a Microsoft exec., the chairman of ASUS apologised, though no one is sure why or to whom, because a company was displaying an ASUS netbook running Android at this year's Computex. An apology? How toady can one person be?

This whole thing bothers me a great deal, not only because I was unwittingly and now unwillingly included in Pro-Microsoft statistics, but because of the general misrepresentation achieved by using these numbers. I'm inclined to think LeBlanc is aware of this, chooses to be play ignorant, and write accordingly. It falls in line with how Microsoft has operated for many years. However if he truly isn't aware, I think that's an even bigger problem. Either way, the whole thing is inexcusable.

Honor Among Thieves

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 12:59:00 +0000

For those that eat up tech gossip the way Hollywood sycophants eat up Perez Hilton, yesterday (June 6) you may have borne witness to, or gotten some after the fact transcription about, the very unexpected meltdown of one Leo Laporte on his program TWiT Live while hosting Michael Arrignton and The Gillmor Gang. The whole thing stems from a question Michael asked, followed by a couple of statements that many, including Leo, would interpret as an insinuation that Leo's integrity was for sale.

Now, while it seems that they have kissed and made up, for a few hours afterwards even Arrington was worried that his professional relationship with Leo was down the crap shoot.

My take on this whole thing is that Leo had every reason to react the way he did. I'm not here touting his years of experience and whether or not that puts him above scrutiny, because frankly no one should ever be raised to that level. However, it's one thing when Jon Newbie walks up and asks such a question or makes that insinuation. It's a completely different thing when Michael, a respected personality, does it.

There needs to be mutual respect in the industry, or at the very least amongst the (self crowned) industry and thought leaders. Michael should have known better than to, in essence, call Leo out in such a manner. It's not that Leo is above quesiton, it's that he should be above Arrington's question, and that's needed to avoid these kinds of uncomfortable situations where both parties are now feeling a little slighted and being forced to mend fences in public.

So I'm glad the whole thing is coming to an amicable end, but notwithstanding, the whole thing should never have come up, and Arrington should have known better.

Separation of roles

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 23:10:00 +0000

Many (pronounced "most") don't have a clear understanding, nor the willingness to learn what areas comprise the field of computing and what roles they play. So as a public service, I will try to break down and explain how each field contributes to the many end products in the area of tech.

First lets identify these roles. In my estimation they fall in one of the following four categories:

Computer Science
Computer Engineering
Information Technology (Specialist)
Information Systems Management (MIS)

These areas will overlap at the edges in some cases, but the roles can be clearly defined. There are also some niche roles interspersed within the ones identified, but they serve very specific purposes and can in almost all cases be viewed as an extension of one of the top four.

The relationship of the roles are also worth mentioning. Computer Science is perhaps the purest role in the discipline in that it doesn't depend on any lower level concept within its own discipline. Depending on what you're trying to accomplish, Computer Science may lean heavily on another subject area (Language Sciences in the case of Natural Language Processing for example) however at its core it's really just math and logic. Once you start going up the totem pole, each new area depends on the one before it. One way to look at it is this: Computer Engineering is applied Computer Science, Information Technology is applied Engineering and Information Systems Management is applied IT. Each takes from the previous and incorporates it for its own purposes.

These areas are all separate but equal. Each playing a part in the development and delivery of the information based landscape we enjoy today.

Lets get a deeper understanding of what each of these areas in the discipline require and the purpose they serve.

Computer Science
The job of a computer scientist is to formulate, test and publish high level theories on computation. The areas of computation are wide and varied and persons will, as is the case with all other scientific fields, tend to focus on a particular area for most if not all of their professional life. The goal is to become an authority on the chosen topic and to contribute to the body of work that exists in hopes of furthering the discipline. This is the top (or bottom if you prefer) of the pile. The work done by computer scientists form the basis of all the technological advancements you see today. Be it the Internet, a PC, or your new iPhone 3G, it all started with a bunch of mathematical formulas scribbled on a black board. The group is manned by scientists and mathematicians.

Computer Engineering
The next stop along the computing assembly line is Computer Engineering. The job of an engineer is to take the convoluted math spewed by scientists and to create real world applications and technologies. In many cases the end products are still too high level for direct consumer usage (think computer processors or application frameworks), but they are tangible and usable items ripe for integration into larger systems. This is where you actually start to see, hear and touch the products that where once abstractly spelled out in a dimly lit room overrun with grad students looking for a recommendation. Computer programmers and electronic engineers will be found here.

Information Technology
An IT specialist has the responsibility of taking the disparate products being produced by engineers and building practical and useful solutions for real world problems. When someone refers to a "computer guy", this is who they really mean as they have by far the most visibility and wear varying hats. They provide the most practical application of technologies and deliver end user solutions. Network and system administrators sit in this group.

Information Systems Management
This is the category that brings oversight and management to the world of computing. It is perhaps the least technical of all requiring only a cursory understanding of deep technological concepts. What it lacks in technical requirements it makes up for by demanding an understanding of business processes and requirements. This group bridges the gap between between the IT specialists and engineers and the conventional corporate roles in a business. They are the indispensable go between that has a foot placed in each camp and can interpret and communicate needs in both directions.

The lay description above should give a basic understanding to those who were never really clear on who does what. If you need more insight, check the repository of all human knowledge, Wikipedia [I've picked an apt starting point].

The system isn't down, it's just broken

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Thu, 22 May 2008 23:23:00 +0000

This post had a notable technology spin to it, but I'm not a fan of cross posting, so...

http://www.misguidedzen.com/?p=14

Let there be search. And it was par.

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Wed, 30 Apr 2008 16:15:00 +0000

It's still going through some development and cleaning up but for the most part, there is now a central search engine for websites of the Government of Jamaica. It's very vanilla and I don't think much will change in the short term but for a first incarnation I wont complain. It functions. It does standard keyword match searches and while I think that this really is a paradigm straight from the 80's , as of this writing we really have nothing better that's anything more than a good theory.

This site forms the base of the overall Web Presence strategy being developed by the government. In essence, they're lining up all the blocks then building up the skyscraper. The other pillar currently on the ground is the GoJ Web Portal, which right now is just a hierarchy link page but will soon be transformed into a service centric portal, and the use of the domain to provide value added services to GoJ employees (GoJ email, for example, to persons in organizations that do not have the internal capacity, competence, budget or time to deploy enterprise level mail).

In the end, this revamped approach and renewed vision of web presence is a promising sign that the Government of Jamaica has finally matured to the concept and opportunities availed by the internet and is finally moving to leverage this tool to empower themselves and the citizens of Jamaica.

Creating a Facebook App

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Sat, 15 Dec 2007 13:58:00 +0000

I wrote the following in response to a question on Yahoo Answers, however I wasn't able to post it due to technical difficulties, so rather than waste my 4 minutes I'll put it here in hopes that it will be googled and help someone else one day.

Q: I want to make a facebook (and now bebo) App...Help?
I have enjoyed facebook apps for a while and as of a few days ago they came on bebo....both of which I have...
I want to make my own app....how can I....and any ideas?

A: First things first, you've got to have an idea. Fortunately (or unfortunately) 99% of the applications on Facebook are mild distractions that serve no real function, so if you want to get into that space, you app doesn't have to be ground breaking. However being in the other 1%, which will take thought, planning and well written code, will most likely give your app longevity long after the viral effect has run its course.

To do a Facebook app, you will most likely need a server that will host it. Facebook will not host your application, they will only give you access to the Facebook platform though an API (authenticate users, get a user's friends, etc.), and then list your app in their directory.

Depending on the development platform available on your hosting server, your programming language of choice, and available APIs (official or third party), you will have to decide on what language your Facebook app will be. The vast majority of the apps are currently done in PHP. Knowing this, it's probably a good idea to stick with that language unless you have a salient objection as this will enable you to get great support on the development forums.

Once you have your idea, your server, and have decided on a development platform, you're next step is to add the Developer application to your list of installed apps. You must have this installed in order to access the needed developer resources. After adding the application you will request an API Key. This is what will allow you to make calls to the Facebook API and leverage the platform. It is also mandatory that your application make use of the Facebook platform in order to be listed in their application directory.

Next you can download their example code that will give you the basics on developing a facebook application, which could be broken down as:

-Check if the user is logged in: If not, send user to log in page
-Check if user has the application installed: If not, send user to add application page
-Load default application page (In Facebook this is called your Canvas page)

You can take that skeletal code and start mapping your idea against to your application.

You will have to become familiar with some new concepts to create a Facebook application that fully utilizes the platform.

1) FBML
2) FBJS
3) FQL
4) The Facebook API

FBML is the Facebook Markup Language. It's a special markup language, just like XHTML, with some additional tags which basically saves you a lot of work in completing common tasks, for example, selecting a friend or friends from a list.

FBJS is the Facebook flavour of Javascript. It has a subset of the functionality of actual Javascript with the limitations imposed to protect users of your application. (please keep in mind though that your application can extend outside of the Facebook world where you will not have limitations of Javascript use and afterwards you can forward your users to the original Facebook Canvas page.

FQL (presumably Facebook Query Language) allows you to query Facebook for data in the same way you would query a relational database with SQL. You can check out the resources below for more information.

The Facebook API is the heart of any Facebook app as this is what really allows you to hook into the platform. Check out the resources below for more information of the capabilities of the API.

What I have outlined is a very high level synopsis of what it takes to have a Facebook app. You will have to (or at least you should) do some additional reading in order to fully appreciate the intricacies involved, but once you've done it once, you could churn out a new app every few hours.

Happy coding.

Resources: http://wiki.developers.facebook.com/index.php/Main_Page
http://forum.developers.facebook.com/

AutoSMS for Facebook

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Fri, 30 Nov 2007 18:23:00 +0000

Despite the prevalence of AutoSMS related posts, I assure you that this is not a developer's blog.

This serves to introduce AutoSMS for Facebook. This applet will allow your friends to send messages to your cellphone directly from your profile, and you'll be able to send messages to one or all of them from the central application page.

Current features include:

Full integration with your current AutoSMS account.

This will give you access to the message management features of AutoSMS from the original control panel.

Privacy controls

Manage which friends are allowed to send you messages. Blocked friends will be non the wiser.

Single Message Multiple Recipients

Type it once, send it to everyone. AutoSMS for Facebook gives you the ability to broadcast a message to your entire friends list.

Convenient invite for your Facebook friends

The more of your friends have AutoSMS, the more useful it becomes to you. Tell them that this is the best thing since sliced harddough bread.

This is a very early release and new features will be added in time. Give it a spin and see what you think.

What's so bad about RealID?

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Sat, 28 Jul 2007 15:31:00 +0000

There's no cynicism to the question. I'm genuinely interested in an answer. Let me first state my interest in the topic.
I am a part of the technical committee charged by the Jamaican Cabinet to investigate the technologies, processes and legislative requirements needed for the establishment of a single ID/Registration/e-Government Authentication system for the Government of Jamaica. A single number that identifies you to all government (and perhaps later on, private) entities; in essence, Jamaica's equivalent to RealID.

During the months of work that the team has put in and notwithstanding all the opinions and objections raised, I am still very much of the mind that the benefits of a single government ID far outweigh the perceived and/or probable negatives. On the government's side this will greatly increase the effectiveness of mandatory processes such as tax collection, border control and the proper monitoring of the health care and educational landscape. On the citizen's size this will greatly improve the manner in which an individual can interact with government services. A single ID will allow eGovernment systems to more effectively communicate, thus eliminating tedious manual processes and increasing the efficiency of government-citizen transactions.

Needless to say that my being a part of the committee responsible for charting this system has no doubt instilled in me a certain level of bias, and as such I would not want to assume that the objections I have heard and yet to hear are without merit. For the most all the objections are centered around the _potential_ of abuse of such a system, as opposed to inherent issues that will arise upon it's implementation. In my opinion that's not enough to derail any such initiative. I have done research into similar systems of other jurisdictions and the concerns seem to be the same: A National ID is the first step towards a big brother/police state.
I could make the point that those establishments may not be such a bad thing, but that would certainly set off a firestorm the likes of which I'm not willing to debate at the moment. I am of the mind however, that if the establishment of a police state is thought to have merit, it will happen, with or without a national ID. In fact, most countries already have the mechanisms for monitoring their citizens in granular detail. A national ID would certainly make it easier, but it is in no way a required component.

So the moot on the table is still the negative connotations of a national ID system. Why is everyone up in arms? I'm keen on making informed decisions and need logical, unemotional opinions. How and/or why is such a system flawed? Is there a real deal breaker or is all the resistance based solely on fear? What about jurisdictions (Singapore, South Africa) that have successfully implemented similar systems?

It will be interesting to see how the issue plays out in the US, especially if there is a change in the executive branch in 2008. Perhaps the benefits are only visible if you are on a particular side of the fence.

Free for all

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Fri, 20 Jul 2007 16:04:00 +0000

As of this writing, you can make free calls around the world* using ViaTalk Free. This service will connect your instrument (landline or cellphone) to the person you're calling, as opposed to the conventional manner of having you shout over a PC microphone. I have no information on how long this promotion will be running, so make use of it while you can. I myself haven't been able to talk to anyone outside of the quick test I ran with a co-worker as the only person I can think of calling is my mother is Pennsylvania, but I keep getting voicemail.

For persons with smartphones and/or WAP/GPRS, you can visit the site and initiate calls using the very same instrument as opposed to a regular PC. It's pretty impressive on my Blackberry.

This is a nice throwback to the heydays of Net2Phone and other online telephony companies. Give your cellphone bill a well needed hiatus and be sure to say thanks to the nice folks at ViaTalk.

(*I haven't verified this, I'm just saying is all.)

On the History of Linux

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Sun, 15 Jul 2007 17:11:00 +0000

Of interest:

You'll have to save and/or view the image in full to get the big picture.

Open Government

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Tue, 12 Jun 2007 00:29:00 +0000

You don't have to think too hard to find a reason to use Open Source. Whether it's stability, security, cost, or cool points, you can almost always find justification. I'm not saying that having a reason means you have to do it, I'm just saying you can easily make a case. In the same breath, whether you agree with them or not, persons can find as many if not more reasons not to go the Open Source route. If you'd like a refresher on a few of them, just read any Microsoft sponsored study or whitepaper.

I'm not trying to rehash that particular debate today, instead I want to take a look at the "informationalized" embodiment of Open Source: Open Standards.

There's a reason we share the same first name

Open Source and Open Standards go hand in hand simply because they are two sides of the same basic idea. People should be allowed to use, modify and share code/information without being restricted by licenses which aim to bring about a profit instead of enriching the persons that use it. They seek to empower users with tools that are a means to an end, not to confuse persons into thinking the tool is an end in itself. In essence, ridding IT of self importance and putting the focus on the work that needs to get done.

Open Standards seek to rid persons of a reliance on a single application or solution. It allows you to move your data from vendor to vendor and have it retain its usability in each case.

With such noble intentions one would think that the buy-in for this initiative would be immeasurable, however it has been victim to pretty much the same issues as Open Source adoption. Again, for a refresher read any Microsoft sponsored study or whitepaper.

Whereas reasons-for can be placed alongside reasons-against for analysis, and either direction chosen if you're scrutinizing Open Source and Open Standards for personal or business reasons, there is one case and one institution in which its use should never be ignored.

Public S-E-R-V-A-N-T

The government is selected by the people, to serve the people. Everything they use belongs to the citizens. They are nothing more than custodians; put in charge of running certain affairs because you're too busy to do it yourselves. One of the most important things that they handle on your behalf is Information. All facets, types and categories of information. In fact, one could say that's all they handle. An economist could express dollars in terms on information; an engineer could express a road as information; the list goes on. Regardless of what type of information they posses however, storing that information is an inevitable task. That's how information is archived, referenced, and shared. Which brings us to the point of interest: Sharing.

Recall my earlier rant; the government holds, it does not own; and it's no different with the information that they posses. It is wholly owned by the citizens of the country and as with anything that you own, you can request it if and when you please (before you say it, yes I know, but let's not get overly technical and lose the lesson).

Your government has a responsibility to provide YOUR information in a manner that you can exploit. It should be open so that you can choose the terms under which you interact with it. It should never be locked down in a format that forces you to subscribe to someone else's method of using that information. It should be open; free of all constraints, proprietary encryption and
third party plug-ins. It's yours, not theirs. If your information is presented to you in any other way, your government has forgotten that _they_ are the servants.

The use of Open Standards in government should have no alternative and should never be open to debate. Whereas the issue of disenfranchising a company will often arise when discussing standardizing on Open Source, the issue is moot when applied to Open Standards as any vendor, open or otherwise, is free to incorporate open formats in their products. Notwithstanding any arguable technical issues, there is not one plausible reason for a government to lock itself, and by extension the citizens that they serve, into the use of one product and vendor because of the use of a proprietary, non-standard format.

The course of action is clear. It's hoped that the powers that be will open their eyes and have a greater understanding of the ideology, not just the practicality, of Open Standards and move to provide their citizens with true, uninhibited access to the information they own.

I love it when you get Feisty

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Mon, 07 May 2007 19:00:00 +0000

I am on cloud 9 with my Kubuntu 7.04 setup. I did a clean install, forgoing all my misconfiguration woes etc. from my previous version.

I installed a few basic applications including the LAMP stack for WataCrackaz development.

I then installed Beryl, which unlike my last attempt to install, was located in the online repository and as such was a hop, skip and an apt-get away.

Next on the list was Automatix which I used to boost the default multimedia offerings (which weren't many) of Feisty. During the package selection process I came across the application that was supposed to be next in my to-do list: VirtualBox. After about an hour of having Automatix run through the installations, I did a restart and was then looking at what had to be the nicest, easiest to configure Linux desktop I've ever had the pleasure of setting up.

I loaded VirtualBox, set up a virtual machine, installed Windows and Office, dragged the window to the right of my desktop cube where it currently sits, waiting to serve up some win32 goodness on a whim.

For now at least, not only is Linux stable, secure and productive, but for the first time in a long time, Linux is actually fun. I'm grinning like a school boy.

IT Hitmen

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Wed, 07 Mar 2007 16:41:00 +0000

Back in 2005/2006 during what seemed to be the last hoo-rah of dial-up, there were are flurry of ads touting the superiority of this service provider over the other. The mudslinging was at an all time high as companies were trying to horde the few remaining dial-up customers as DSL, cable and wireless become the established means of getting on the internet(s).

Two of the bigger names in the biz, NetZero and AOL, had a head on battle, but those outside the know wouldn't be any wiser. While NetZero hurled ad after ad boasting of their service and trivializing that of their "main" competitor, AOL seemed to have taken a very nonchalant attitude and was simply business as usual. The fact of the matter however is that AOL was hitting back just as hard; not directly, but by employing a hitman.

segue:
AOL is an odd company, or perhaps one that's so strategic that simple minds such as my own can't comprehend their awesomeness. Judging from the approach they have taken with NetZero, it might very well be the latter. AOL owns Netscape; the developer of the original internet killer app. After losing the "Browser Wars", Netscape spread its wings and became a service provider, portal and God knows what else (today it's a social news site playing catch up to the early movers in the area. Go figure). In the late nineties (1999 to be exact) Netscape was bought by AOL/Time-Warner, the media conglomerate. It retained and maintained many of the technologies that Netscape had put out and even maintained the brand. It's hard to say why AOL made that move. Many assume that is was to keep them from competing with their own Portal, or simply to get their user base; either way, 1999 marked the end of the company that put the first layman on the net.

Back to the story:
The broo hah hah of dial up continues and NetZero is taking aim at AOL in no uncertain terms, but instead of going on the defensive, they simply and silently launch a covert attack, Netscape, to do the mudslinging on their behalf. Netscape's soul purpose it seemed was to jab at NetZero, who was relentless in their jabbing of AOL. With this approach AOL has the profile of a company that can't be bothered with petty name calling. They _seemingly_ take the high ground and leave the other "kids" to play in the mud.

The whole purpose of a hitman is to do my dirty deeds and keep me from sullying my own hands, and Netscape played the role nicely. I don't have numbers to know if it actually had any effect on NetZero's bottom line, but the whole debacle was an interesting one.

For your homework read up on Microsoft and the BSA.

Snagging a tech job: The interterview

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 13:27:00 +0000

Much has been written about winning over interviewers and snatching up that prized position in the company of the month. It's with that backdrop that I've decided to add my 0.02c. You can't have too much of a good thing.

Wear a goddamn jacket
There's a reason I put this one first. No single article of clothing or accessory wreaks of more professionalism than a tailored jacket. Buy, beg, borrow or steal, but never show up for an interview without that most important piece of garment making up your ensemble. I've been on interview panels where the only person considered was the person wearing a jacket. Was he saying anything that wasn't being said by other candidates? Perhaps; but nothing so exemplary that it would have secured his position. What made the difference is that this candidate had "management material", "upward mobility", and "forward thinking" written all over him, simply because of a treed like, navy blue blazer. The clothes makes the man.

Don't act like you're Superman
The average interviewer isn't dumb and isn't easily swayed. They're able to reason and they know that everyone has faults. Nothing is more irritating that someone who tries to come off as being the best thing since sliced hard dough bread when everyone knows that there's no such thing (sliced hard dough bread is the eight wonder of the world). It's irritating simply because you're now leaving it to the interviewer to try and figure out what exactly your faults are. You would save a lot of time and effort if you're just upfront about what you can do, what you can't do and what can be reasonably expected of you on the job.

Don't tell the interviewer that you can code in .NET for hours on end without any need for food, sleep or conjugal visits. Instead, let it be known that after staring at a computer screen for a few hours you start to zone out and you need a 20 minute respite. Not only will this put the interviewer's mind at ease in terms of trying to figure out what issues to expect from you, but it also means that if you're seen walking around the halls for no apparent reason the first thought in your superior's head is that you just ran a marathon on that security module you're designing, and that makes everyone happy.

Know what's expected and say it
This is speaking to what you're gonna have to do in this new job to keep the shop running. In a 5000 employee fortune 500 company, if you're being hired as a Database Administrator, you can rest assured that databases are all you'll ever be asked to know and use so play up on those skills. On the other side of the coin, if you're hired as a DBA in a 5 man programming house, then you can bet your unemployment cheque that you'll be called upon to help out a bit with other jobs. In that case, make it known that you're pretty good at quality control, talk about your exemplary documentation writing skills and don't forget to point out that you were once a programmer in a former life. While doing this however, please keep the former point in mind.

The long and short is that the conventional thinking when it comes to getting a job in IT doesn't always play out in the manner one would think. Persons need to know what's going on in the mind of an employer. They're not as mystified by what tech guys do anymore and as such you need to be more pragmatic in your approach. Remember, you probably want them more than they want you. Act like it.

WataCrackaz AutoSMS 0.4.2

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Fri, 20 Oct 2006 04:32:00 +0000

I got a half day earlier this week to work on my pet project and took the time to crank out an update. Version 0.4.2 uses "Smart Polling" to give users message notification without DDoSing my server.

It works by increasing, decreasing or disabling message notification based on your use of the toolbar in a given session. With this update we're back to 100% functionality. Enjoy.

WataCrackaz AutoSMS Status Report

noreply@blogger.com (Karl A. Morris) — Wed, 09 Aug 2006 22:18:00 +0000

This post was originally intended to give an udpate on the latest release of AutoSMS which now provides two-way messaging and a phonebook (visit http://www.watacrackaz.com for details), however this may be of some interest as well:
--

Dear Customer:

Your account for watacrackaz.com is being sent this warning:

Hello.

It has come to our attention that your website, watacrackaz.com accounts for 52.05% of server traffic.

Currently you are on a shared hosting server. In shared hosting, multiple sites are hosted on a single server, so each site \"shares\" server space and resources with other customers. However, to be fair to the other sites on the server there are limitations with shared hosting. This email is to inform you that your domain is receiving too much traffic to remain in a shared hosting environment. Excessive traffic can lead to causing downtime, and slower response times for the other sites on the server. You may want to consider upgrading your account to a dedicated server to avoid problems in the future.

A Dedicated Hosting environment provides an exclusive server devoted solely to you. You do not share the server with other customers as with shared hosting. This freedom allows you to have total control over what is on your website, the number of websites or domain names hosted on the server, disk space usage, and complete freedom to install whatever you desire such as the latest versions of PHP and MySQL. Dedicated servers also come with their own email systems. For more information feel free to call our dedicated support department: 1-866-519-7079. Detailed information on the plans we offer for dedicated servers can be viewed here: http://www.hostrocket.com/products/dedicated.htm

-The HostRocket Support Team

To resolve this as soon as possible, a trouble ticket regarding this warning has already been opened for you, and you can reply back to it immediately by replying to this email. Please keep the subject of this email intact in your response.

-HostRocket Support
support@hostrocket.com

--
So here I am. Being nudged off the edge of my comfy shared server that I've had for many years (since 2002 if memory serves). This project has been a labour of love for me (in other words, no monetary returns), and though it's open to donations, they have been few and far between (thanks to those that have made an offering. There's no feeling in the world like knowing someone likes your software so much they're willing to pay even though they don't have to).

After all the work I've put in I'm not about to cut and run, so it seems I'll have to make the step. I'll just have to find ways to (at least) have the server pay for itself. It's really hard to justify to anyone the reality of losing money so that people around the world can save money.

Anyway, thanks for all the support so far and I'll do all in my power to keep this service alive.