Michael Braun’s Blog

As I was putting together a grading rubric for a recent student assignment, I had no trouble turning the stated criteria into grading criteria. There are 15 points possible for the assignment, so I broke down the assignment’s expectations into 15 pieces, each worth one point. This has made grading papers a breeze. Does the student provide a good definition of the concept? 1 point for yes, 0 for no, and .5 for a valid effort. But as I graded more papers using the rubric, I started to notice some issues with my criteria. I hadn’t considered whether or not all concepts were truly orthogonal.

First, some explanation of the concept of orthogonality. It’s a statistical concept that asks whether each factor being measured (or each test performed) is providing solely unique information. For example, cutting up a pizza is an orthogonal task. There’s no way that part of one slice can also be a part of another slice. No slices can overlap. This is important in statistics as it allows you to make stronger conclusions about the effect of one factor and because it allows you to keep your chance of error to a minimum.

So how does a statistical concept relate to building a rubric? For each of the standards that I put on my grading rubric, I expected to be able to evaluate them independently. Having an interesting introduction has nothing to do with providing a proper definition; neither of those factors relate to whether the student used proper grammar. Thus each of those factors is orthogonal (or independent). But what about these two items: appropriate choice of concept and successful application of concept. These concepts are not always orthogonal. For example, if the student chooses a concept that is not valid because it isn’t part of the course, then that student can’t apply the concept to explain her group’s interaction. In that case, the student loses two points for one mistake.

What’s the big deal?, you might ask. The rubric is perfectly clear on how many points are awarded for these two factors. That’s perfectly true. Except that if the concepts are not orthogonal, then I can’t tell what I’m really measuring. Does the student understand what an appropriate concept is? Maybe, but not based on her paper. Does the student understand how to apply a concept? Maybe, but I can only tell if the student chooses an appropriate concept in the first place. So the student’s answer can’t actually tell me what the student understands. To award points when I don’t have the required information to make the decision is not ethical.

Before considering what might be done to solve this problem, let me recognize that one of the issues is my specific point-by-point system, which allows these concepts to be considered in an orthogonal sense in the first place. A more subjective grading system might not have this problem. But because I believe that these types of rubrics are most transparent and helpful, I think it is useful to consider whether or not your concepts are orthogonal.

What should be done instead? After assembling your point rubric, take a glance over it. Are there areas where you expect that some students will fall into a pit of lost points? Are there items that you think are tied a bit too closely together? If there are, you need to revise the rubric and adjust the points awarded. After taking a look, you may still need to adjust after grading a few papers. I didn’t recognize this problem until I found a couple of students who had picked incorrect concepts. Thankfully I recognized the issue right away and made adjustments in my grading (though not to the rubric itself).

On a broader scale, these kinds of adjustments may be required for a wide variety of ways that we treat students. For example, let’s say a student asks for an extension to a paper one hour before a paper is due and another student asks one hour after. Our inclination might be to give an extension to the student who asked prior to the due date and not to the student who asked after. But what other factors may be at work here? Does the timing of the request also correlate with the quality of student? If it does, then we may be granting extra time to good students and not to bad students.

Yet, how much does the extra time influence good students versus bad students? I’m guessing that it’s not equal. For a good student, extra time may be put to good use. For a bad student, extra time may not make a difference at all. So to grant extra time based on factors that ALSO correlate with good students versus bad students may be to grade the bad student even more harshly and the good student even more leniently. This may further the gap between good students and bad students.

I’m not suggesting, then, that grading policies be made hard and fast or that all students be treated to exacting standards. These too tend to favor good students over bad. Rather, I’m suggesting that, within reason, instructors stay flexible. Be flexible in grading and be mindful of ways that your grading rubric may systematically favor some students over others, above and beyond their assignment quality. Be flexible in allowing for extra time, knowing that the only component of assignments that should be graded is the quality of the work. Of course, this doesn’t mean that all students get As or that students can turn in a paper whenever they want. After all, it’s a school, not a zoo. But to not be aware of systematic, nonorthogonal, discriminatory factors that disadvantage some students and not others - that’s just plain ignorance.

If you had to pick one college course that you would recommend for everyone going to college, what would it be? There’s a lot of factors to consider. I had some great professors who taught courses on relatively obscure subjects (Jewishness and Performance, anyone?). And I took some obscure courses that have provided me relevant information over the years (a course on evolution; a political science course on multiculturalism; a course on communicative disorders). And I missed out on some good courses like introductory philosophy for no particular reason. Out of all the courses I could recommend, only one seems like a universal good idea for everyone to take: introductory psychology.

Intro psych, whatever the course number at your institution, is likely to provide you with a lot of practical knowledge. First, simply the parlance of how to talk about certain social scientific matters is well covered in intro psych. What is a theory? What is a hypothesis? What is a trait? These are words that are borrowed from the hard sciences, but often find more everyday use in how we discuss predictions of human behavior. We often theorize about things that could happen, make educated guesses, or talk about whether someone is “just wired that way.” Introductory psychology helps shape our language of these issues.

There’s also a solid history aspect in learning about psychology. Psychologists are often rolled up into history. Freud unleashed a new type of thinking about is really going on in our minds. B. F. Skinner made us think differently about how rewards impact our behavior. Stanley Milgram demonstrated that people follow authority, even when it causes them great distress. No doubt there are other great names I am missing. These researchers gave us new ways to think about how the world works and have earned a place in history because of it.

Because of psychology’s impact on history, its importance is manifest in pop culture. Books and movies, especially from the ’70s, talk about going to an analyst. Electroshock therapy and labotamies (and other treatments) turn up in horror movies. A Clockwork Orange ends with classical conditioning to treat an orientation toward violence. One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest is all about the problems with how our society treats mental illness. These references aren’t lost if you haven’t taken intro psych, but it’s a lot easier to understand them (and laugh at them in some contexts) if you have the background.

Finally, there’s real practical value in a working knowledge of psychology. Because of its place in history and pop culture, these topics come up frequently. Just today in class, someone referenced a “Skinner Box,” an environment designed to measure repeated responses caused by rewards (and specifically used with rats and pigeons). A Skinner Box is both a historical reference and also a nice metaphor for a controlled environment structured to elicit a certain response. Without the knowledge of this information, the reference is lost. And taking an intro psych class is the perfect place to gain that knowledge.

Two items: First, Apple announced the release date for the iPad: April 3, just a week off their initial prediction of 60 days post announcement. Pre-orders start on March 12. I’ll be ordering the 32 GB, Wi-Fi version for in-store pickup. And you can bet I’ll be waiting in line the morning of April 3, ready and excited to get my iPad. I’ll most likely be purchasing Apple’s case, as no other maker (that I’ve seen) has announced a case that also works as a stand like Apple’s case does. It seems likely that I will also purchase the keyboard dock, as I plan on using the iPad as a word processor. But I’m not committed to that just yet.

The iPad has got me thinking totally differently about how I can use a computer. For example, this morning I got up at 7 to feed the cat, then grabbed my laptop and headed back to bed. I was a little worried that using the keyboard would be noisy and wake up Lauren, but on the iPad, this wouldn’t be a concern. It’s the perfect shape and size to use in a variety of positions, unlike a laptop.

The iPad has the possibility to change my schoolwork too. After I finish writing this blog post, I’m going to go and grade some student papers. I find that I am most successful at grading student papers when I have a very simple number breakdown for all the points I award (so for every element, the student can earn 0, .5, or 1 points). This means the ideal application for grading is a form with check boxes. Lo and behold, the iPad version of Numbers (Apple’s spreadsheet app) has exactly this feature; you can convert any spreadsheet into a form view. That could make grading a breeze. I’m especially excited to use the form view for student presentations. I am very bad at evaluating student presentations while they are going on and terrible at assigning a grade, mostly because I tend to view what they do favorably, rather than think about where they went wrong. But if I could have a checklist right in front of me, then I might have a better chance of putting down some ratings and using this to assign a grade.

In addition to grading, I’m hoping that the iPad has a great PDF reader. It can absolutely display PDFs from email or the web, but I’m not yet clear on what kind of annotations may be available, nor what kinds of third-party apps there might be for PDFs. Right now, I print out a lot of articles for class. I’m not that keen on it, but it’s difficult to read them otherwise. Especially when I need to discuss them in class and write papers on them later, I want to have a hard copy with my hand-written notes. But if I could use them on my iPad instead, complete with highlighting and annotation capabilities, then I would not have nearly as much reason to print them out. Anyway, that’s all about the iPad for now.

Second, my favorite pair of shoes (brown, leather, somewhat dressy/stylish) developed a tear between the upper shoe and the sole. I noticed this on Thursday. Not wanting to prolong the life of the shoes and wait for them to tear more (especially with the possibility of having to walk through puddles), I went to buy some new shoes yesterday. There were a variety that looked nice, but then I saw that the store was still carrying the exact style that I was looking to replace. So while I tried on a couple of others, I came home with the exact style. How boring.

Today, on Madison.com, and probably published in the Wisconsin State Journal, there’s a story about the pains of living far from a major hospital, specifically in the rural communities that dot northern Wisconsin. These communities are too small to support a for-profit medical practice and too removed to be attractive to many (if any) doctors. It would be a sacrifice to go and serve a rural community as a doctor, especially when many need to begin making a good salary so as to pay off their substantial school debts. So what’s to be done? It’s not fair to ask these people to move, especially as rural communities are vital to food production. It’s also not fair to ask them to pay excessive amounts for health care, such that a doctor could be lured to the area. It’s time for the government to step in with a program to help pay for medical education and help rural towns at the same time.

The program need not be complicated. Students admitted to medical school agree to serve a term in a rural community for a period of five years. Their placement is selected by the government based on need; the student is allowed to rank states, so as not to move them too far away from family or friends. In exchange, the student has their debt forgiven after the five years of service. The student could also be provided with incentives like a car (as rural doctors may be required to make home visits or provide other services), a housing stipend, or a flat-rate salary (with insurance payments going to the community or to the government). Interested communities must provide a community health center that meets certain requirements and may be asked to contribute to the doctor’s salary.

It’s hard to imagine that there would be many medical students completely opposed to this idea. It could even prove too popular, necessitating a more selective application process. Some students who participated in the program might even find that the rural life suits them well. Being a community doctor is likely to carry more cache than working in a big city in a large medical practice or hospital. And the cost of living would be much lower too. The program would likely be popular with communities as well. There may even be communities who would propose to enact the plan themselves, offering a partial or total payment of debts in exchange for service. And the government (state or federal; you’ll notice I haven’t been specific) may find that the program could work for other jobs that are in high demand. Overall, it seems like a win all around. Any bets on which political party would support the plan and which would arbitrarily try to block it?

Nick Bilton, writer for the New York Times’ Bits Blog, evidently spoke with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer today about the subject of tech etiquette. They spoke about topics of texting while dining and snooping in a partner’s email; these issues represent new areas of communication that may require new rules of etiquette to address. Mr. Bilton’s answers provide a unique viewpoint of someone arguing that new ways of communicating require us to rely on new rules, rather than old. I respectfully disagree with Mr. Bilton’s answers.

First, on the issue of texting while eating a meal with others, Mr. Bilton gives his position: the answer to the question changes based on who I’m with. I wouldn’t feel comfortable texting a friend while I’m in a meeting with my boss. But I often sit at dinner with friends, chatting in person while simultaneously engaging with distant friends in a digital context. Depending on the age group I’m with, that can be considered perfectly acceptable.

This seems awfully confused. First, when you are dining with friends, with whom are you interacting? Your friends whom you are eating with, or a distant friend? Either deserves your full attention; neither deserves your attention divided. Simple tolerance of a behavior does not make that behavior the correct one. This is a key principle in justifying the mere existence of rules of etiquette. Mr. Bilton should not assume that his behavior is proper just because his friends don’t object. The main objection may come from the friend sending the texts, who would be horrified that his messages are taking Mr. Bilton’s attention away from the friends he is dining with.

Personally, I believe texting is only as appropriate as taking a telephone call at dinner. Telephone calls are acceptable if they relate to an urgent or emergency situation, or if they relate to a guest still attempting to make it to dinner (and thus calling for instructions, or to say they are late and dinner should start without them). In any case, a telephone call or text should be taken only after excusing yourself from the table. This is common courtesy to your dining guests and to the person calling or texting.

Second, on the issue of snooping around your partner’s phone or email, Mr. Bilton gives his position: it’s important for couples to have their own personal identities online, but that can change when it comes to questions of infidelity. In a scenario where someone suspects his or her significant other of being unfaithful, snooping is justified.

This answer seems to have incomplete logical consideration. The goal of such snooping, ostensibly, would be to confirm or deny that infidelity is occurring. But the actual outcome of snooping is likely to be either confirmation, or conclusion that the evidence does not exist on the device. For example, an affair at the office need not include personal emails. Thus, snooping begets additional snooping. The heart of this issue has nothing to do with the technology; Mr. Bilton is giving relationship advice. He advises you to snoop and spy rather than express your concerns openly. It seems likely that Mr. Bilton has no experience in these matters of the heart.

Personally, I do not think it is ever justified or necessary to look at your partner’s emails, Facebook, or any other personal correspondence, unless invited to do so or in an emergency situation. Reading such private communication is likely only to do harm to a relationship. It should be priority one for any couple to resist the temptation to seek more details about a conversation or correspondence. This desire to know can only breed mistrust. Personal communication should not be assumed to be undermining a relationship. Often times, it may be doing the exact opposite. A wife may express concern that her husband isn’t doing his fair share of household duties; her friend may respond that such concerns are normal and give her advice on how to help encourage him. Were the husband privy to the conversation, then his response may be filled with resentment. If he stays in the dark, then everyone is happier.

Simply because Mr. Bilton knows technical information about gadgets does not make him an advice columnist. Mr. Bilton - stick to what you know. We don’t need any more tech etiquette advice from you.

A lot of research in the area of the social and psychological effects of television viewing has indicated a negative relationship between watching TV and your family life. In general, kids who watch more TV are less likely to have family dinners, to read books, and get good grades. These effects are especially pronounced at the high end of the spectrum with kids who are watching upwards of four, five, or more hours of television a day. A new study has been published that mostly rehashes what we already know, but it also says that kids who spend more time in front of a screen are less able to form meaningful relationships with their parents (here’s a news article about it). But the structure of the findings offer no real helpful information.

First, we must recognize (as the researchers do) that the findings are correlational. That means kids who have trouble forming relationships with their parents (for any number of reasons) may be more likely to spend more time watching TV and using the computer. It is not that television viewing causes reduced relations. This finding isn’t particularly striking, as any home where kids are able to watch five or more hours of television is probably not a home where parents and kids are spending lots of meaningful time together.

But recognizing the correlation is no true help for parents who might seek to change how their home is currently structured. If parents are constantly working or exhausted from working, don’t plan family activities, or simply aren’t interested in being with their kids, then throwing out all screens in the house won’t help them bond with their children. Indeed, it might actually breed serious resentment and hurt their relationship even further. So removing the media may not actually change the atmosphere of the home.

Furthermore, there are plenty of ways we could imagine media actually making a home better, even if it does put distance between parent and child. If the child spends more time at home, then the child is not out on the streets; for some parents, spending money on a big TV and video games is insurance toward the child’s safety. If the parent also likes to watch a lot of TV, then television is potentially a time for the family to be together; if the other option is the parent not being around, then media should be encouraged. If we imagine homes where kids watch hours of television every night as homes where, on average, things aren’t going so great in the first place, then some types of media use may be better than the alternative.

Based on these results, what are parents to do if they think this issue may be affecting their family? The findings offer no easy solution. Suffice it to say, a drastic change is probably not the best bet. Rules about screen time are probably a good place to start, coupled with assigned responsibilities that lead to earning the privilege of screen time. But that’s not enough. If parents really want their relationships with their children to improve, then they need to create meaningful times for family interaction. Without this, there is no opportunities for parent-child relationships to improve, whether or not the kid spends all his time in front of the television. This is the step we need researchers to take next. Too much TV is bad - research and common sense says so. But as to what we do next, no one is nearly as certain.

Here’s a link to a blog post from the New York Times “City Room” blog. In it, author David Sax bemoans the fact that food service employees expect tips for performing a wide variety of services and in a wide variety of contexts (bringing you food, mixing a drink, et cetera). He recognizes that tips are necessary due to the low minimum wage of these employees (lower than the minimum wage for jobs that don’t receive tips), but argues that we should instead fight for this wage to be raised, rather than continue to have to tip for everything. In this way, Mr. Sax misses out on the larger economic picture.

Tipping can be stressful, especially in the United States where is is both culturally expected and quite divergent from our usual economic transactions. We aren’t used to negotiating prices for almost anything; even purchases where it is expected, buying a car for instance, are regarded as some of the least fun purchases to make. We like to see a set price and make our decision based on that. Adding in an additional calculation for a tip complicates the purchase. Further, different areas of the country may have different expectations for tip percentage. I always tip 20% minimum, but out of town friends sometimes think I’m crazy to go so high. Tipping is complicated, so it’s no wonder that Mr. Sax is arguing against tipping.

The solution to eliminating tipping (or reducing its expected percentage), however, is not so simple as raising the minimum wage due to simple economics. Were the minimum wage to go up, restaurants would likely raise their food prices. It wouldn’t be so dramatic as to happen over night, but gradually the prices would rise in all restaurants affected by the change. Slow to change, however, would be the cultural norms of tipping. If the minimum wage went up by 10% and food prices followed, we would not expect to see a similar downward shift in the rate of tipping. Such a change would actually be doubly warranted, as higher wages mean less dependence of tipping and higher prices mean higher tips. Such a change might cap the rate of tips at their current level, but it would be unlikely that the tipping norm would actually decline.

Mr. Sax’s solution, then, is actually worse for his pocketbook. Even if he keeps tipping at 15% (as the article says he does), he would be forced to pay for the rising minimum wage in higher food costs and higher tips. And even if he did get his way and the cultural norms changed, economics would argue that the quality of service would decline, as service workers would have less motivation to work extra hard with the hope of earning a greater tip. Maybe Mr. Sax should think about what he really wants and argue for that instead, as I certainly don’t trust his economic solution to the issue of tips.

No word on his website, but renowned computer science professor and design critic Don Norman has some pretty interesting things to say about a magical future device in his 1988 book The Design of Everyday Things (originally published as The Psychology of Everyday Things). Here’s what he says, when imagining a future computing system:

“The imaginary calendar looks like a calendar. It’s about the size of a standard pad of paper, it opens up to display dates. But it really is a computer, so it can do things that today’s appointment calendar cannot. It can, for example, present its information in different formats: it can display the pages compressed so that a whole year fits on one page; it can expand the display so that I can see a single day in thirty-minute intervals. Because I frequently use my calendar in conjuction with my travels, the calendar is also an address book, notepad, and expense account record. Most importantly, it can also connect itself to my other systems (via a wireless infrared or electromagnetic channel). Thus, whatever I enter into the calendar gets transmitted to my office and home systems so that they are always in synchrony. […] The computer is invisible, hidden beneath the surface; only the task is visible. Although I may actually be using a computer, I feel as if I am using my appointment calendar.”

That sounds an awful lot like an iPad. The iPad is about the size of a pad of paper. Its calendar application looks like an actual date book. While it can’t expand to show an entire year (and I’m actually not clear why that would be a good feature), it can show an entire month, week, or day. It can sync when connected to a computer, or by using a CalDAV server (e.g., Apple’s MobileMe service or Google Calendar) so that everything stays updated.

He also asks for an address book, notepad, and expense account program. Apple ships the iPad with an address book and notepad applications (designed to look just like a real address book and real notepad). These also can be synced with multiple computers. And I’m certain there are multiple expense account programs that can be downloaded from the App Store.

Most importantly, the iPad is a computer that doesn’t look like a computer. When Prof. Norman wrote the book, computer graphical user interfaces were becoming more common. Today, they are universal but also quite confusing. The iPad transforms to become the application, and thus it does feel very much like you are interacting with an appointment book rather than a computer program. One of the selling points mentioned when Apple debuted the iPad was that the device disappears, and you feel like you are interacting with only the content.

I would love to hear Prof. Norman’s thoughts on the iPad. So far, I can find only a quote from him in a Wall Street Journal article:
Don Norman, a tech-design pioneer and professor of design at Northwestern University, went a step further. “I think it has redefined the computer,” he said. “The laptop is now obsolete. The multitouch interface now extends to word processing and spreadsheets.”

I guess we can put him in the ridiculously enthusiastic camp. Count me as a member as well.

Here’s the logic used by Mika Majapuro, marketing guy at Lenovo, to justify not entering into the tablet market with a “slate” device like the Apple iPad: “We of course build plastic mock-ups that we show (to customers)…we had a slate form factor. The feedback was that for (our) customers it will not work because of the need to have (a physical) keyboard.” (Quote courtesy of CNet.) What’s wrong with this statement? For a marketing guy, Mr. Majapuro seems to have no idea how you market a device like the iPad to business customers.

It seems like he takes either of two viewpoints on the iPad, each of which I will liken to marketing an alternative to a sedan. First, there’s the too many features pitch. “Why drive that giant car into the city every day when you can replace it with a motorized scooter? The scooter gets great gas mileage, is stylish and hip, goes anywhere you need it to go, and is easy to use. It’s so much better than the car you currently drive!” This pitch presumes that the car driver does not need most of the features of their car and thus can handle something much simpler. But a laptop, to a business person, is an invaluable tool, especially when traveling. It cannot be replaced by something simpler in most cases. So asking customers if they wouldn’t just rather have a simple tablet computer doesn’t make any sense. If they had to pick just one, they have no choice but to keep the full-powered laptop.

The second marketing strategy is the full-feature, low-power pitch. “Why drive that giant car when you can have a small, inexpensive budget car? This new model seats four, but is half the size of a sedan! It gets great gas mileage, though takes 45 seconds to go from zero to 60 MPH, and it only has a 4 gallon gas tank. But you don’t need all the power of your current car, and this one has all the same features.” This is akin to selling a tablet computer with all the hardware of a laptop built in. That means it runs Windows 7, has 10 USB ports, connects to external peripherals like mice and keyboards, and does everything a laptop does. Except that it has terrible battery life, weighs a ton, and seems weak when compared to an actual laptop. No surprise that someone would not choose this product over a real computer. It’s an inferior laptop without a keyboard and with a touch screen; it has absolutely no features that anyone really wants in a tablet form.

What Mr. Majapuro misses is that the iPad and other devices like it are not designed to replace the functionality of a laptop. If you need to do extensive writing while on the road, then an iPad will not be the computing device for you. If you need to juggle dozens of spreadsheets, numerous strategic marketing plans, and all the design specifications for your company’s entire product line, all while on the road, then an iPad falls way short. Your only option is a laptop.

But what happens when you need to share information on a computer with a customer or client? Do you really want to pull out your work laptop to do a simple task like that? Last semester, a professor gave a presentation to us communication science folks using his laptop that he clearly didn’t know how to operate. Thus, during his slideshow, he was continually interrupted by Skype alerts. He just ignored them, rather than stop the show to turn off the alerts. This is the experience of many people who take their full powered computers and use them for multiple tasks at once. When you are the only person using the computer, the alerts and other individual configurations are helpful. When you have to share the computer with others, the alerts are a distraction.

Maybe Lenovo is simply being cautious. After all, the iPad isn’t out yet, which means Lenovo would have had to do a lot of work in defining the market to be releasing an iPad-like tablet device now. And Steve Jobs is notorious for disparaging a product or function before Apple releases their own version. But because Mr. Majapuro is a marketing guy, I’m surprised that he is taking the customers’ perspective on this kind of products. Feedback from customers in response to either of the two marketing pitches above will be negative, but only because the pitch is for a product or a use of a product that no one would be interested in.

The fact is that every warrior needs a variety of tools to do the job. Road warriors are no exception. The additional burden of carrying a 1.5 pound Apple iPad, in addition to a laptop, is hardly worth noting when compared to the advantages of such a product. If Lenovo continues to have no interest in making such a product, then they may have missed an opportunity to sell both a laptop and a tablet to many of their customers. Good news for Apple, as I’m sure they will welcome the additional iPad sales.

In the latest mass excision of apps from Apple’s app store, some 5000 apps with sexual content were removed. For the most part, it seems like these apps delivered up soft core images including pin-up style pictures. Other apps were more crude. Escaping the cuts were apps from Sports Illustrated and Playboy. So, why did Apple cut some sexy apps but leave others intact? Apple isn’t offering explanation, but here’s some speculation. Apple cut those apps because they didn’t trust the developers to deliver only appropriate content.

For example, an app that displays pictures featuring partial nudity requires the app creator to have a supply of appropriate photos. That means that each photo should be licensed properly, rather than taken from the internet or uploaded from an angry ex-. Each photo should show a person who is age 18 or above. But there are only so many app makers who also make their own content. Sports Illustrated and Playboy are providers who do. Less reputable sources are not nearly as trustworthy.

Imagine what would happen if one of these app developers let through an image of a 16 year old that was uploaded after it was texted to a friend. Every person who downloaded that application is now subject to child pornography investigation. Each iPhone with the app on it can be seized as evidence of a crime. And who knows what kind of penalties Apple faces? Removing apps en masse is a bold step to take, but this kind of problem is one that Apple executives are likely to view as absolute disaster.

As Lauren and I wandered around Barnes and Noble today, I noticed that they are now advertising the in-store availability of their eBook reader the Nook. Around the in-store display stood clustered a few individuals admiring (or perhaps gazing skeptically) at the device. At $259, it’s hardly a spur-of-the-moment purchase, but curiosity, if not actual interest, was running high. I thought about going over to the salesperson standing behind the display and peppering him with obnoxious questions. I didn’t, and instead will offer those questions to you as required questions before buying an eReader.

1. Do you buy all or most of your books? If yes, then an eReader may be for you. It requires you to purchase books. They can be purchased over an internet connection, saving you a trip to the store. If the answer is no, then an eReader could be a tremendous waste of money. If you go to the library or borrow from friends, then an eReader has little functionality that fits with your current reading style.

2. Do you lend books to or borrow books from friends, family, or colleagues? If no, then an eReader could be a good purchase. If you only read books you own and hoard your books like a greedy miser, then you won’t worry about the lack of sharing capabilities in eReaders. If yes, however, then an eReader could put a serious kink in your preferred reading methods. Once an eBook is locked to your device, the only way to get it to someone else is to hand over your expensive eReader.

3. Do you have room to store your books? If no, then an eReader may be an ideal solution for your space problems. After all, we can’t all afford the space we’d like to spread out. Even in my two bedroom 1100 square foot apartment, we’re running out of space for books! I don’t know what you do if you live in a 400 square foot studio. I guess you really have to like using books for decoration. If yes, then an eReader gives you no advantage over actual books. Not to mention if you LIKE having books around, then an eReader leaves you with no physical trace that you actually own the book.

4. Do you buy a lot of books every year? If yes, then an eReader could save you money. eBooks cost around $10 now, and prices seem on the rise as publishers demand more money. That’s not much less than a current newly released paperback (which tend to retail at around $15). To justify the purchase of your eReader in one year, you’d need to buy over 50 books, with an average savings of $5 per book. Spread out over a couple of years, your total books obviously declines. But factor in any cost to a damaged or broken eReader, and you’d better buy an awful lot of books. So, if no, then an eReader may be a bad purchase.

5. Do you travel a lot and read a lot? If yes, then an eReader could be a good purchase. Being on the road and trying to read a lot can be really difficult. Either you have to bring a lot of books with you from home or buy books on the road. In either case, your suitcase is going to end up pretty heavy. An eReader gives you the ability to carry a lot of books with you (and buy over an internet connection) without the bulk and weight. If no, then an eReader might be a waste of money. Even if you travel on a couple of vacations per year, do you really want to be making special eBook purchases for a trip if you usually get books from the library or read hard copies?

6. Do you want another gadget (and a single function gadget at that) in your life? If yes, then an eReader could be a good purchase. It doesn’t do much more than display eBooks, so if you like that kind of thing, then buy away. If no, then don’t waste your money. eBook readers are quite under-powered, especially for their price. Do you really want to carry around another electronic device in addition to your laptop and cell phone?

7. Does the feeling of holding an actual book mean nothing to you? If yes, then get an eReader. It feels like you are holding a piece of electronic gadgetry, not a book. It’s silent, plastic-y, and dull. But if no, if you like the feel of a book, then steer clear of eBooks with all your might. I think they are actually sent here to destroy our civilization - seriously.

The tech rumor mills are abuzz today about the possibility that Hulu will start a paid service model, and specifically that that model will center around the iPad. Details are scarce, but most of the rumors indicate that either all of Hulu will be pay-only, or you will pay for some “premium content,” or that using Hulu on the iPad (or other non-Flash-supporting device) will cost money. The question is why would Hulu risk a good thing?

Right now, you can watch a limited number of shows on Hulu from a variety of networks. It’s a great site if you missed a show from last night. It’s not a good site if you want to get caught up on a show that started in the fall. The shows play in good quality and have ads play at regular commercial break times. One ad shows per break and overall, it’s not very intrusive. Overall, the service works well; Lauren and I use it at least once per week.

So what is the point of charging for the service? From a monetizing point of view, it would seem easy to make more money by playing one minute of commercials per break, rather than just 30 seconds. Or to play a couple of minutes of commercials before the show begins. Or to replace the video ads with interactive ads that require consumers to click to continue after a certain period of time has passed. (This is the style of some ads on ABC.com.) None of these solutions is consumer-friendly, but we’re already used to minutes and minutes of ads on broadcast TV. Why should the extremely convenient Hulu be different?

Hulu would be very different from broadcast TV if it started charging for service. If I start paying for the service, then I don’t want ads. And if payment is required, then people are likely to move to different sites. (After all, each network offers the same shows on their individual website.) There may be some advantage to selling content for viewing on an iPad, but the iPad is not a laptop replacement nor ultra-portable. Why wouldn’t I just use my laptop if it costs me money to play the same content on my iPad?

I think increased ads are a perfect way for Hulu to make more money, if that’s what they’re concerned about. A pay-for-extras model could be another way to generate more revenue. But if they are trying to convert the entire site to pay-only, then I think they’re due for some spectacular disappointment.

Following the arrest of the Taliban’s military commander Abdul Ghani Baradar, two more senior Taliban officials have been arrested, according to the New York Times. This means that these people have been free and loose around Afghanistan and Pakistan since we invaded 8 years ago. Somehow our gigantic military offensive failed to arrest these senior officials. In Iraq, we arrested most of their leaders; they have already been tried and executed by the Iraqi government. But in Afghanistan, we couldn’t get the job done. So, kudos to President Obama and our military leaders for finally starting to get things right.

The two senior leaders who were arrested were “shadow governors” for two northern provinces. That means that they were de facto rulers of those areas, despite the fact that the Taliban is no longer in power. It’s structure like this that turns that Taliban from a group of thugs into an organized and disciplined gang of thugs. With plenty of angry, violent, religiously-motivated young men willing to terrorize people, these rulers maintained their power and helped to hone and shape the rage of their fighters. Had we arrested these leaders in the beginning, those young men would have been unorganized and undisciplined, potentially spelling a shorter lifespan for the Afghani insurgency. But we couldn’t get the job done under Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

Further, the earlier arrest of Baradar means more arrests and surrenders could be one the way, at least according to Ahmed Rashid on Fresh Air last night. Rashid speculated that Baradar would be treated well and used to arrange meetings with other senior Taliban officials. This type of dialogue could help speed along the end of the Taliban reign of terror, which has continued despite the US invasion. We can only hope the Pakistanis are treating Baradar with the proper treatment to help encourage him to cooperate.

It’s examples like these arrests that remind me how terribly run the entire Afghanistan campaign has been, and how a simple change in strategy and focus can start making dramatic progress after just a few months. Maybe such progress won’t continue, and no doubt the corruption of the Afghani government is maybe the worst in the world, but I feel like we’re finally starting to get it right against the Taliban.

Here’s a ridiculous idea. It seems that company Oblong Industries has designed a computer system that works just like the computer Tom Cruise uses in the movie Minority Report. In the film, Cruise interacts with the computer like he’s conducting an orchestra, using his hands, arms, and entire upper body (all while standing) to interact with large computer screens. As a movie effect, it looks pretty cool. As a practical way to interact with a computer, it’s ridiculous.

If this is the future of computing, then we had all better start lifting weights now. I guarantee my arms are not strong enough to work on a computer for more than 20 minutes at a time. Even if we don’t have to wave our arms around and can instead use more subtle hand gestures, it still puts a lot of strain on the forearms. Imagine, even worse, that you have to use a system like this at your job, for 8 hours a day. You’d be exhausted, only to have to come home and do the same thing to check your Facebook. Sure, the body would naturally adjust after a while, but I think I’d rather go into a manual labor job than have to deal with a computer system like this.

One point that the company makes is defensible: interacting with a computer via a mouse and keyboard isn’t “natural.” That’s true to the extent that humans are not capable of learning. But, of course, we are capable of learning and the segments of the population for whom a mouse is not natural is rapidly shrinking. Designing a system to rid us of the mouse, in this day and age, seems about 20 years late, not part of the future of computing.

And what about the underlying assumption that the company makes - that computer input is what stands as a barrier to entry? Is that really true, or is it perhaps that the fundamental idea of graphical user interfaces is foreign to some - that is, the idea that an icon represents a physical object? I would argue that this is something that could be changed in the future. (Look to the iPad’s iWork applications, which show their documents as they actual document, rather than as an icon.) Oblong doesn’t identify that as a problem with computing, and thus only offer a rather ridiculous replacement for the mouse.

Oblong is being treated by the tech media as thinking to the future of computing. But they’re not. You know the only product mock-up that I’ve seen in the last year that made me think differently about computing? It’s Microsoft’s Courier, a two screen tablet that folds like a book. (My favorite tech product of late, the iPad, doesn’t count because it’s an actual product; Courier is just an idea, for now.) Until Oblong starts innovating like that, I’m not interested.

Cell phone makers are busy at their busiest event of the year: Mobile World Conference (MWC). We’ve already seen several big unveilings, including the new Windows Mobile OS 7 and Bada OS from Samsung. There have been plenty of other phones designed to run Android, Google’s mobile OS. It’s interesting to note the similarities and differences between these mobile operating systems. On the one hand, there are severe limitations as to how unique an OS can be on a phone. On the other hand, there is still lots of room for innovation, especially as the smartphone market continues to expand. The problem is that too many cell phone companies seem content to copy, rather than innovate.

One of the companies that is most copied in terms of design is Apple and their iPhone OS. This is partly because Apple is known for their excellent interfaces but also because Apple has lead the way toward increasing smartphone sales. The problem with this approach, however, is that Apple’s OS is designed around old fashioned principles. The main feature of their operating system is that each function of the phone is represented by an equally sized icon; each icon represents a button, and thus the OS is “native” to many users. This kind of design is simple and effective, but it represents old ways of interacting with technology (button pressing), not new. Apple then augments the button system with multi-touch interface and gesture control. They mix the old and the new for an intuitive experience.

Other handset makers frequently copy Apple’s button/app design and add touch controls with differing degrees of success. Whereas Apple’s interface is extremely responsive (so that touching the screen really feels like you are touching the graphics), other handset makers’ touch screens can be slower and less responsive. When this is the case, the phone feels like old, button-based technology. And more importantly, it means that the OS design has failed to produce a product that is easy and natural to interact with.

There are obvious limitations to Apple’s design, namely the fact that we tend not to get information in a linear fashion. I don’t want to open up a clock application to see the time, then open my calendar application to see what is on my schedule, then open up my maps application to see how to get to my upcoming meeting, and finally open my weather application to see if I need to bring a coat. Instead, I want all that information in one single space. Android solves this issue with the use of “widgets,” small applications that display one or two pieces of information and are visible right on the phone’s screen.

Widgets are an example of an innovative attempt to solve a problem combined with foolish design. In order to use the widgets most effectively, you need to move them around between different screens of widgets - something that is not intuitive. Further, the use of too many widgets means your phone’s battery life may fall. These are very practical aspects of design that are not implemented well in Android. Further, the idea of widgets themselves is reductive. It solves a problem on a smartphone with a solution from a computer. Smartphones are not computers for good reason. Their limited screen size means solving problems of information with tiny applications running on the screen wastes opportunities to be more creative.

I am tired of seeing poor design in smartphone OS, in terms of usability and non-originality. Where are interface designers with a real perspective on how to use a device in ways that blend intuition with new features? In ways that are instantly learnable and unusually deep? In ways that are visually appealing and familiar? Apple is, so far, the only company that has come close to meeting these goals, and their OS still leaves a lot to be desired. I don’t know when another innovative OS will come out, because thus far we see only copycats. I will definitely be reading more about Windows Mobile 7 and Samsung Bada as more information becomes available.