The Secret Lair

Image via Wikipedia

As part of last year’s Google I/O, all the attendees received a free Chromebook, to be delivered after the hardware hit the market. I received mine last Wednesday. It was packaged nicely. The weight of the machine was pleasingly light, and their was not much more with it than the power cord and an external monitor dongle. I cleared the detritus away, plugged the machine in, and fired it up.

The screen was nice and bright. The keys felt a little on the cheap side…naturally, there is no back-lighting on the keyboard, but the keys themselves feel a little…Fisher Price. There’s nothing wrong with the size of the keys, and in face, I like the keyboard as much as the one on my old Macbook Pro. It’s the feel of the plastic more than anything. The unit is so light and so plastic that it feels a bit more like a kid’s toy than a piece of serious hardware.

I entered my Google ID, and the box let me in. That’s when I realized that this Chrome OS would never do for me.

It’s the Chrome Browser with a keyboard. That’s it. File storage is just storage…there was no way to even unzip a downloaded archive file. Unless you throw it into developer mode (which I did, naturally), there’s no way to get at the internals of the box for real. There is a file browser, but it’s sauce is weak.

On its own, the Chromebook would never work for me. It might be perfect for certain users, people who only use email, Google Docs, etc, and the same holds true for certain business owners. I can see why the low price would be attractive. But for folks like me, people who tools beyond the browser, the box is little more than a crippled laptop.

That being said, you should know that I’m writing this column on my Chromebook.

Why?

Well…as (bad) luck would have it, after I tested my new Chromebook, I went upstairs to get on my real laptop to get some work done.

I hit the power button.

It refused to start.

After a great deal of cursing, I finally found a use for my new Chromebook. I had to turn it into a real laptop. Luckily, there are a number of hackers out there who have solved the problem in a particularly useful way. I worked with the instructions, made changes as necessary (there are some small differences between developer mode on the CR-48 (the beta chromebook) and the released version) and two hours later, I was running Ubuntu 11.04 on the Chromebook.

After figuring out how to decrypt the old hard drive and move the files, I was happy to find that I now had an ultraportable, ultralight functional Linux machine capable of doing the majority of the tasks I need to do every day. I am, frankly, thrilled with it. The main drawback is the main disk partition is only 9G in size, but add an external hard drive and this is a perfect machine.

And the battery life! With an SSD drive, there are NO moving parts. This little machine has a battery life of six to eight hours, even on Wifi. Generally, I don’t need to take the power supply with me: I unplug in the morning, use it during the day, and then plug it back in before bed.

So…the Chromebook with Chrome OS is useful, if you don’t need anything more than a browser. but if you are in the market for an awesome Linux netbook, the Chromebook is a perfect buy.

Have you used a Chromebook? What did you think?

Image by abiodork via Flickr

To say that work has been stressful of late would be something of an understatement, and I have vowed to work harder at keeping a good mindset and being a still point in the chaos around me. I do this because I think it is important: it not only helps focus my mind, but it does not add to the already-heightened sense of drama that is suffusing my meetings. I value reason and consensus, and a poor mindset in stressful situations can make that nearly impossible.

I started the day by doing part of my Triathlon training, working to get into a good headspace to tackle work and the other commitments I knew would be waiting for me. Fitness has been something I’ve come to value quite a lot in the past nine months, ever since I started working toward my goal of losing 160 pounds. I am 65 pounds down now, and if I do not work out, I feel it both mentally an physically. I slip back into bad patterns of eating and over-caffeinating when stressed, and that’s not good for me, my family, or anyone I need to interactive with. So, I work out to make my world better place.

We cause ripples. Our actions affect others.

I was reminded of this in two powerful ways today. The first was Thomas Gideon’s excellent essay, “Presence.” In it, he discusses the idea of “polishing the mirror.” Polishing the Mirror refers to the prized brass mirror of Japan, where the only way to get the metal to the proper sheen was to use small deliberate strokes for a long time until the mirror was perfect. He talks about self-improvement being much the same thing, and then by extension, by embodying the principles we value, we cause positive change. He cites this as an alternative zealotry: causing radical change by radical means over a short period. Gideon’s point, that the strongest force is the subtle force, inspired me today, and reminded me that the I have a choice in the way I spend my moments. That being there can be the most powerful thing of all.

The second thing: I found out today that I have been nominated for a Health & Wellness award at work. When I read the nomination text, I was deeply moved:

“Over the past year Chris has changed his lifestyle from an unhealthy one to a healthy one. He has lost over 60 pounds, and is preparing to compete in the Cleveland Triathlon in August. More notably, in doing so he has inspired SEVERAL of his coworkers to take their own health seriously as well and to get motivated. I am one of those people. Since January 1st I have lost 45 pounds, and will be competing in the Cleveland Triathlon with Chris in August as well. My life is healthier and happier because of Chris Miller.”

I am deeply humbled by those words, and I am honored that my actions for myself have affected others in a positive way. This reinforces my commitment to myself, to live the values I hold dear: the value of good friends and community, the value of physical fitness as a path to greater peace of mind, and the value of creative work: to give things to the world rather than simply consume.

Live the courage of your convictions. Polish The Mirror. Be There.

CC BY-NC-ND image from Arthaey via Flickr

Last week, I took a look at the WHO’s announcement classifying radiofrequency electromagnetic fields, such as those emitted by mobile phones, as being possibly carcinogenic to humans, and dubbed it a bad call. Their decision was announced via a press release, which stated that an article would go live “in a few days” on The Lancet Oncology website that would give a concise report of their findings. This has yet to surface at the time of this writing, which is incredibly disappointing – engaging a sensationalist and fear-loving media with an international health policy statement without disclosing the specific evidence-based thought process behind it is poor planning at best, and at worst, implies that the thought process behind it may be suspect.

This leaves us with only the press release to work with, which notes that the decision was based on an extensive literature review. That said, the release contains only a single piece of hard data from one paper: a statistic from the INTERPHONE study which stated that there was a “40% increased risk for gliomas in the highest category of heavy users (reported average: 30 minutes per day over a 10‐year period)”. That seems pretty impressive and dramatic, as I’m sure the author of the press release intended it to be.

It’s also wrong.

It turns out that the correct way to portray the finding the release is referencing is actually a bit confusing, and somewhat unclear from the INTERPHONE data. It’s also interesting to note that most media and blogs reported INTERPHONE to show no correlation overall between mobile phone use and brain cancer. How, then, are we to reconcile that with the above statistic? It turns out INTERPHONE did show an overall correlation of tumors with phone use – a negative one. They found a reduced risk for gliomas in people who had ever used a mobile phone overall, including a reduced risk for gliomas in the second highest category of heavy phone users. Yet, we don’t see anyone making the claim that moderate mobile phone use is somehow protective against brain cancer.

There are several reasons for these confusing results. Firstly, there is no plausible way that radiofrequency electromagentic fields could cause cancer in the first place, so one would an expect a study examining this question to give unclear results at best. Also, INTERPHONE has several sources of error and bias that the authors of the study discuss in detail, and as such caution that these “limit the strength of the conclusions we can draw from these analyses and prevent a causal interpretation”. As such, INTERPHONE provides an excellent lesson in evidence-based medicine, as well as the truth behind the Mark Twain-popularized truism, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.”

What is the INTERPHONE study? INTERPHONE is the largest case control study every done looking at mobile phone use and brain tumors. It was conducted from 2000 through 2004 in 13 countries¹: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Israel, Italy, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. The study focused on two specific types of brain tumors – gliomas² and meningiomas³. Patients diagnosed with either of these tumors during the study period were interviewed in detail about their prior mobile phone use habits, as well as other possible exposures to radiation. This is a case-control study, meaning that a control group was created by “matching” at least one cancer-free person to each cancer patient based on having otherwise similar demographics⁴. Overall, 2425 persons with meningiomas, 2765 persons with gilomas, and 7658 controls were included.

What does it show? The survey data from the study participants was analyzed to see if there was any correlation between having either a meningioma or glioma and different parameters of mobile phone use – such as number of years using a mobile phone, or total amount of calls made during one’s lifetime – as well as the anatomic location of the tumor. A statistic called an Odds Ratio (OR) was calculated for each comparison, which is standard for a case control study. An OR compares the odds of one thing divided by the odds of another; in this case, the odds of having a brain tumor if one has ever used a mobile phone divided by the odds of having a brain tumor if one has never used a mobile phone.

An OR of 1.0 means that there is no difference between the two groups, whereas an OR above 1.0 would represent an increased risk for a tumor, and an OR of less than 1.0 shows a decreased risk. However, it is important to note that the OR gives a ratio of the odds that a thing will happen, and does not give a direct percentage chance of increased or decreased risk. To determine that, one would need to use a different statistical technique than is used in case control studies, such as the Relative Risk.

In INTERPHONE, the overall OR’s for a meningioma and glioma being associated with using a mobile phone for greater than one year were 0.79 and 0.81 respectively. This means that the odds of having a brain tumor if one has ever used a mobile phone for more than a year were actually less than the odds of having a brain tumor if one had not used a mobile phone. The authors then broke down the patients into ten subgroups based on number of hours spent on the phone, and found that the vast majority of OR’s were less than 1.0, again showing a decreased risk. In fact, the ninth (second highest) category for cumulative call time showed the lowest OR’s in this breakdown – 0.71 for gliomas and 0.76 for meningiomas. The tenth, or highest cumulative call time, category is the one that showed showed elevated OR’s of 1.15 for meningiomas and 1.4 for gilomas.

This latter OR of 1.40 is where the press release is getting the 40% increase statistic, or so it seems. If that is the case, this is an incorrect reporting of the Odds Ratio, as 1.4 does not mean a 40% increase⁵. This is a common error that is made when reporting on OR’s, because they are often confused with the other statistic mentioned above – the Relative Risk. If a Relative Risk was calculated to be 1.4, then it would be correct to say that there would be a 40% increased risk, because Relative Risk directly compares two probabilities, not two sets of odds.

So what is the the direct percentage increased risk of gilomas in that group, or any of the groups for that matter? Simply put, the data needed to calculate that is not in the INTERPHONE paper.

In addition to the above, the investigators further broke the data down to see if there was a relationship between tumor location in the brain with amount of phone use. Again, they found reduced OR’s overall and in most categories, although OR’s above 1.0 were seen in the highest use category both for tumors being on the same side of the head as phone use and in the temporal lobe of the brain.

What are the strengths? INTERPHONE managed to include large numbers of patients with meningiomas and gliomas. They focused on younger patients in the age range of 30-59 years old, as these were most likely to have used mobile phones over the prior 5-10 years. They also focused on urban areas, which also have the longest and greatest amount of mobile phone usage.

What are the weaknesses? The authors discussed a large number of possible sources of bias in the study itself. Many patients diagnosed with brain tumors and asked to participate in the study refused for a number of reasons; only 64% of glioma patients they identified agreed to participate, for instance. Being unable to include one third of glioma patients in the study could easily have impacted any associations seen. Not every established confounding factor was controlled for – for example, higher socio-economic status has been implicated by other studies as being a associated with an increased risk of brain cancer, but INTERPHONE did not record participant economic status in a rigorous way. Also, the timing and nature of the interviews of participants was variable.

It was further noted that the glioma group had a greater amount of potential sources of bias, especially for those in the higher use category for mobile phones. That group had a higher proportion of someone responding to the survey on behalf of the patient instead of the patients themselves, which could have led to greater inaccuracies. Also, that group had a much greater amount of missing data from the interviews, for which a “best guess” was made by the investigators and plugged into the calculations. Also at play is the normal human condition of recall bias and subjective memory, especially in the context of being asked detailed questions about things that happened several years prior. It is also worth noting that depending on its location and the clinical circumstances, a brain tumor and the treatment thereof might interfere with memory and the interview process.

What conclusions can we draw from it? Given the amount of potential error and bias involved, there are very few definite conclusions to be had. None of the OR’s were very low or very high, and their distribution is clearly confusing. Certainly there’s no reason to suspect that mobile phones somehow reduce the risk of gliomas or other brain cancer, just as there’s no plausible reason that the radiation they emit should cause brain cancer in the first place.

The one obvious conclusion is that there was no strong correlation between mobile phone use and brain cancer seen in the study. Even with the methodological issues involved, a strong correlation between phones and cancer should have been seen if it was there, and it was not. The authors themselves said it best:

An exhaustive analysis of this large data set involved estimation of hundreds of ORs; rather than focus on the most extreme values, the interpretation should rest on the overall balance of evidence. The null hypothesis of no association would be expected to produce an approximately symmetric pattern of negative and positive log ORs. A skewed distribution could be due to a bias or to a true effect. Our results include not only a disproportionately high number of ORs <1, but also a small number of elevated ORs. This could be taken to indicate an underlying lack of association with mobile phone use, systematic bias from one or more sources, a few random but essentially meaningless increased ORs, or a small effect detectable only in a subset of the data.

Overall, no increase in risk of either glioma or meningioma was observed in association with use of mobile phones. There were suggestions of an increased risk of glioma, and much less so meningioma, at the highest exposure levels, for ipsilateral exposures and, for glioma, for tumours in the temporal lobe. However, biases and errors limit the strength of the conclusions we can draw from these analyses and prevent a causal interpretation. (emphasis mine)

This brings us back to the WHO’s decision, which in theory is based on all the medical evidence, inclusive of INTERPHONE. The majority of the studies done, including one other large cohort study involving over 420,000 patients in Denmark, show no association of brain cancer with mobile phone use. A minority of studies have seemed to show an association, but their results are not strong, and the methods they used questionable. Overall, neither INTERPHONE itself nor the sum total of studies done to date makes a case for even a possible association of mobile phone use and brain cancer of any type from an evidence-based medicine perspective. There is no scientifically plausible way that radiofrequency electromagnetic fields can cause brain cancer that we know of, let alone protect against it, from a science-based medicine viewpoint.

I have previously stated that the WHO does not do science. Yes, they count scientists among their number, and yes, they are involved in scientific research – the WHO’s IARC was a big part of the INTERPHONE study, for example. That noted, their primary mission, i.e. the thing that they do, is to shape international health policy and procedures. Said policies should be based on rational appraisal of scientific evidence, and that is why I am incredibly disappointed in last week’s announcement and the use of an incorrect, wrongly reported “shock statistic” in their press release. It may be that they have considered unpublished data in their review, that the public does not yet have access to. If so, however, this would constitute an example of the loathsome practice of “science by press conference”, in order to appeal in a dramatic way to the public and the media.

As such, the WHO’s classification of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as being a Grade 2B possible human carcinogen is not a mere scientific statement, but one of public health policy with far reaching implications. These include for individuals, whom the WHO is counseling to use hands-free alternatives to standard phone use, as well as economic ones for the mobile phone industry and the stock market. All of this would be fine if there was credible evidence of even the possibility of a correlation, but there is not, at least in the public domain. If there is credible evidence, then it is both confusing and concerning that it was not published prior to the WHO engaging the media with a press release. It will be interesting to see what the WHO’s thought process and evidence base was for this decision once their article in The Lancet Oncology comes to press.

Reference: The INTERPHONE Study Group. Int. J. Epidemiol. (2010) 39 (3): 675-694. doi:10.1093/ije/dyq079 (2010).

1. The United States being notably absent. [↩]
2. The most common type of brain tumor – malignant and rarely curable. [↩]
3. The second most common type of brain tumor – usually benign, and with a high cure rate. [↩]
4. Similar age, sex, and region of residence, among others. [↩]
5. Lies, damn lies, and statistics. [↩]

The Commandant of our Air Forces has already waxed poetic on the wonders of Balticon; for me to do so would only be gilding the lily, and I have firm beliefs about the dangers of overgilding anything, let alone lilies. Therefore, I’ll say that I had a wonderful time, delighted in meeting with old friends and new, and cannot wait until next year.

Since I have not been to a new-media-centric convention in almost five years, I am woefully behind times when it comes to my podcast listening. What follows is a list of audio treasures I’ve picked up, listened to, and would happily force upon you, my most loyal of minions.

• Living Proof Brew Cast: John Taylor Williams and Thomas “cmdln” Gideon host this semi-monthly show focusing on what they call the Beer Quest; a combination of their own exploits in homebrewing beer, seeking our new and exotic beers/ciders which they taste and discuss on air, and interviews with anyone with a love of fermented liquid. Their most recent episode features a cider tasting with Nathan Lowell, author of the beloved Solar Clipper novels. This Overlord has had the honor of brewing and tasting with these gentlemen, and if you like beer and/or homebrewing, this is a must-listen.
• Antigone’s Wrath: One of the people I most enjoyed meeting was the talented Starla Huchton, author of The Dreamer’s Thread, a 2010 Parsec-award finalist. She launched her new work, Antigone’s Wrath as a live full cast recording at Balticon. Antigone’s Wrath is the tale of Captain Rachel Sterling who finds herself in a deadly situation when a strange ring finds its way into her possession. The Brotherhood is hot on her trail and the carefree life she once knew is lost in a maze of deception and high adventure. The audio and video of the first chapter has been released; I believe that this book will be one to keep up with over the summer.
• Talking On My Morning Walk: When David and I arrived at Balticon, our first stop was to join Nathan Lowell for breakfast at Panera. It was a first for both of us; neither had met the man who delighted us for so many hours with his words. Sitting and talking with him was a real treat, and I developed a real fondness for the man. Since abducting him would likely impede the progress of future books, I decided to subscribe to his personal podcast, Talking On My Morning Walk. It is exactly what it sounds like; Nathan discussing whatever is on his mind as he takes his morning constitutional. He’s is refreshingly honest and uncensored, and it’s like have Mr. Lowell in my pocket. Which isn’t nearly as creepy as it sounds.
• Ditched By Kate: It’s not a podcast: it’s a band, and a damn fine one. There are people in this band that you might of hear of, such as front man Phil Rossi (author of one or two or three Podiobooks) and Chooch Schubert (host of one or two podcasts). They were outstanding to hear live, and that’s not just the scotch that the Bad Doctor and I were imbibing speaking. I purchased their five-song EP and am craving more oroginal work from these folks. I should also note that their fiddler is smokin’ hot, and believe me, I know a little thing or two about smokin’ hot fiddlers.

And there you have it, a small smattering of earcandy schlepped to you from Balticon 45. This is by no means a definitive list: try searching the #balticon hashtag on Twitter for more fun and games.

CC BY 2.0 image by epSos.de via Flickr

Yesterday, the World Health Organization caused more than a bit of a stir by declaring that mobile phones are a possible cause of cancer. My own reaction was one of pained disappointment at the news. Whenever any organization makes an announcement like this that is based on dubious medical evidence, especially when filtered through a credulous media to a public that may not be grounded in the basic facts, it causes unnecessary worry that can be a challenge for physicians and scientists to deal with.

Let’s take a closer look at the announcement itself, what it’s based on, and what it means.

Who said it? – The declaration came from the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is a component of the World Health Organization. This seems to represent the final word from the WHO on the matter, as there is no “higher up” body in the organization that needs to approve or finalize this decision.

What did they say? – The WHO/IARC put out a press release dated May 31, 2011 that classifies radiofrequency electromagnetic fields as being possibly carcinogenic to humans. This was based on the conclusions of a working group of 31 scientists from 14 countries that met to review and discuss the studies involved. The declaration seems to apply to all such energy fields, although the studies they considered were those looking specifically at wireless phone use. They concluded, as one might expect, that more studies are needed in the future, and made the suggestion that people should make use of “hands-free devices or texting”.

What does that mean? – The IARC categorizes agents and exposures into several categories, based on their level of carcinogenic risk. These are:

• Group 1: carcinogenic to humans
• Group 2A: probably carcinogenic to humans
• Group 2B: possibly carcinogenic to humans
• Group 3: not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in humans
• Group 4: probably not carcinogenic to humans

Radiofrequency electromagnetic fields are now classified in group 2B. For the sake of some odd context, other common things classified in group 2B as having possible carcinogenic risk include:

• coffee
• pickled vegetables
• zidovudine (a medication to treat HIV infection)
• metronidazole (a commonly used antibiotic)
• lead
• phenytoin (an older but still frequently used medication for seizures)
• carpentry and dry cleaning (as occupational hazards)
• progestins (a hormone used for many things, including oral contraception)

This is an interesting partial list to me, as it contains exposures that as a physician, I would rarely, if ever, take into consideration when counseling someone about diet or a particular medicine. In the case of the medications above, the associations are just so weak or rare that it doesn’t enter into my decision making process for using them in treatment. That’s why I find the WHO’s suggestion to avoid standard phone use to be strange – based on the level of evidence and classification, this seems to be quite a conservative, if not mostly fear-based, comment.

What do the studies say? – This post contains an excellent summary of the studies involved. Suffice it to say that most do not demonstrate any increased cancer risk with mobile phone use. Those that seem to show some risk are in the minority, most of which come from a single research group, which could indicate a persistent methodologically flaw or bias on their part.

The press release notes that one study found a 40% increase in gliomas (a specific type of brain cancer) in what they called the highest category of heavy mobile phone users, namely those who were on the phone for 30 minutes a day for 10 years. This seems impressive, and is the only hard data point in the press release, which they did not give a citation for. I tracked this down to be from a study last year called INTERPHONE, which overall showed no increased cancer risk; the 40% figure is taken from a subgroup analysis, meaning that statistics were done on a small subset of people in the study, which is technique that significant conclusions should never be drawn from due to statistical vaguery. Presenting this single, cherry-picked piece of data in the press release strikes me as quite disingenuous on the part of it’s author(s).

Is it scientifically plausible? – Apart from the lack of study evidence for increased brain cancer risk, one must consider whether or not it is even scientifically plausible that the radiofrequency electromagnetic waves generated by a mobile phone could cause such a phenomenon. This seems to be a biological impossibility, based on what we know to date. The microwave radiation generated is extremely low in energy, even compared to everyday biological processes, and is unable to cause DNA damage. Any heat energy produced wouldn’t eclipse typical environmental exposures – a period of exposure to warm sunlight, or the typical circadian body temperature variations we experience during the course of a day – and so would have no physiological effect.

What do I think? – “Cancer” consists of a complex spectrum of disorders that are very different from each other, and have different triggers and mechanisms that go beyond mere DNA damage as an instigating factor. It is also possible that mobile phones may have some unelucidated long-term carcinogenic effect on the human brain. All that noted, the idea that radiofrequency electromagnetic waves can cause cancer is biologically implausible, and the vast majority of studies have demonstrated no correlation between phone use and cancer incidence. It is far more likely that natural variance in applying statistics to medical studies, or other non-phone related factors, could be at play in any positive results seen.

Conclusion – The WHO/IARC has promised a more detailed summary of their findings in the July 1 issue of The Lancet Oncology, and that the article in question will be available in a few days online ahead of print. Hopefully this will give a better insight into their interpretation of the data and their thought process. However, unless they reveal some sort of excellent previously unpublished data, which is spectacularly doubtful, I suspect I will remain boggled at their recommendation. It may be that their agenda in this declaration is to spur further study, to sate pressure from special interest groups, or merely a bad choice in an attempt to do the right thing for public health, and I hope to get some hint of that as well.

In any case, we can rest assured that the biggest medical risk from phone use is talking or texting while driving, and not phantom brain tumors – and that’s something we can easily do something about.

Gæt en smartphone - Del 2, CC BY 2.0 image by @boetter via Flickr

I’m taking a pause from my mini-tour through deck-building games as I scramble about to get things done before Balticon begins. As with several trips of late, the prospect of heading away for a few days raises a perennial question – do I pack up my glorious but cumbersome laptop to go with me, or can I go solo with my smartphone only?

This query is the start of a more interesting broader discussion, one that balances the natural affection many of us have to acquire shiny tech with the desire to be as streamlined as possible in lives that are packed full of Things That Need Doing. It’s no surprise that this is a conversation many people are having. In recent weeks here in The Lair, xinpheld touched on the impact that a smartphone acquisition has had on his life, we’ve discussed why exactly one of these newfangled tablet things might be worth buying to someone who already has a lot of machinery, and Overlord Miller has examined his experience trying a tablet to completely replace his laptop. Offsite, one of many examples is Mur Lafferty’s reasoning on actively reducing her number of gadgets.

As to myself, I currently have a 17″ Macbook Pro¹ and an iPhone 4². Despite gazing a bit too long at a passing iPad or drooling at Mr. Miller’s description of the Samsung Galaxy Tab, I have no serious inclination to buy a tablet as I have no particular role for it to fill. I’ll use my laptop instead of the phone when both are available, but I’m finding more and more that my smartphone isn’t just a stopgap for when I’m away from a computer, but can actually replicate the desktop experience in many ways. But is it enough right now to ditch a computer altogether? Let’s break down what I actually need a compu-tronic device for³:

• Interwebs access: The iPhone is hampered by Apple’s asinine business-driven lack of support for Flash, but otherwise does a fair job accessing the web. For ease and compatibility, I’m currently wedded to Google for email and other services, and their latest iteration of the mobile sites for Gmail, Calendar, and Reader nearly duplicate the ease and functionality of using them in a full computer-based browser. One of the biggest issues with the lack of Flash support is being unable to display video encoded by most non-Youtube services, although both Netflix and Hulu are supported through apps. Also, apps allow Twitter, Facebook, Skype, and other flavors of instant messaging to work just as well as on my laptop.
• Physicianly work: Via an app, I can access the full remote version of my hospital’s electronic medical record from my phone. Although the interface is a bit touchy, the program is otherwise identical to what I would pull up on any hospital computer, allowing me to do the usual doctorly things – write notes, prescribe medications, and confirm orders, just to name a few. My hospital also uses Groupwise⁴ for internal email and scheduling, which I normally access via web interface when offsite on my laptop, however the phone app version actually has a swifter, smoother interface than the desktop iteration, and so astounds me by working better.
• Gaming, baby: I’m not currently using a computer as a gaming platform; that dubious honor goes to the Xbox 360 and PS3⁵. There are several mobile-specific games that do make my phone a destination device for brief spurts of gaming, however, including the previously praised Drop 7, Canabalt, and DodgeDot, among others.⁶
• Other programs: This is where the phone dies in comparison to my laptop. Document management is a big part of my personal workflow, and on the phone, any sort of document editing is remedial at best. Creation of slide presentations, which I frequently do for various talks, is right out. Additionally, recording and editing of audio for podcasting or other work is totally off the table.

Of course, aside from the above, there are other issues that hold any smartphone back from being a true computer replacement, the biggest of which are processing power, screen size, and ease of interface. To some degree, all three of these are addressed by current and upcoming tablets, as well as portable keyboard solutions⁷. That said, tablets are still stuck in a limbo state – they can do the same things smartphones do, only faster and better, except they don’t let you talk to people like a phone; they can do most of what full computers can do with a better form factor, but they aren’t to the point yet of handling robust programs or graphically intensive games.

What I would love to see in the near future would be a single device that is a smartphone/tablet combination. The tablet would have a built-in lightweight keyboard interface, and enough power to handle fully functional programs for document creation and audio editing. The smartphone component could be easily undocked from the tablet for ease of use, but otherwise the two pieces of hardware would share the same core data, and benefit from the tablet’s better processing power and storage when docked together. That’s my ideal device⁸, at least for the moment.

As to Balticon, the phone will not be going solo, and the computer will be coming with me. Perhaps if I was flying instead of driving, and not giving a slide presentation, I’d go that route – after all, the phone does the basic computerish things well, and allows me to access everything from the hospital at least as well as I could from the hospital itself⁹.

Have you ever gone smartphone only, without a computer of any kind? If you have, were there any surprising successes or abject failures in doing so? Do you even think it’s possible to consolidate all of your tech needs comfortably to a smartphone in 2011?

1. Purchased while under the compulsion of lust for a large monitor, which overwhelmed the more sensible brain regions that were trying to point out that a smaller device would cause considerably less back strain to carry around. [↩]
2. I’m not an Apple fanatic, but at this stage in my life I’m interested in gadgets that are slick, reliable, and don’t require much troubleshooting. Apart from seeming to discover a new error every time I sync my phone with iTunes, Apple’s iStuff suits this busy consumer nicely. [↩]
3. This is entirely separate from all the other neat things smartphones can do that desktop or laptop computers typically do not, such as GPS functionality and other mobile app specific awesomeness. [↩]
4. Which I loathe. Because it deserves loathing. [↩]
5. As a former PC gaming snob, this is pretty much heresy. I try not to think about it too much, and do self-flagellate on occasion. [↩]
6. Angry Birds is not one of these. Please. I have a standard or two. [↩]
7. I was excited to get the Thinkgeek Bluetooth keyboard case for my iPhone for Christmas. I was dismayed to discover that it tripled the bulk of my phone and was awkward to use, so gave up on it after a couple of days. [↩]
8. Well, that and it being open source and DRM-free, of course. Fie on you, Apple! [↩]
9. It strikes me that this may be more of a damning statement against the current hardware status of my clinical practice than a compliment to my phone. [↩]

My laptop died about three weeks ago. It was a Macbook Pro, and was a real workhorse. I’m not surprised it died; I’ve configured it all manner of ways, including a Mac/Win/Unbuntu triple-boot at one point. Unsurprised, but disappointed — it was a nice piece of hardware, and I’m sorry to see it go.

This put me an a tough position. The Money Fairy hadn’t dropped off the bundle of bills that would enable me to buy a new one, and in reality, I wanted to reconsider my computing strategy. Things have changed considerably since I bought my MBP; I do not spend as much gaming, I do not spend as much time writing code, and in truth, I do not spend as much time on the computer as I used to. Even as my MBP was marching toward oblivion I had switched completely over to Linux save for a few activities (Netflix, for instance), and so the idea of running right out to buy a new Mac or Windows machine really did not appeal to me.

I made a decision that surprised my wife and myself; I decided not to go buy a new computer. I have a small Asus Eee netbook which, while tiny, could be hooked up to a monitor and keyboard, and as I would in text this days, all I need to do was check email, browse the web, and use Vim, my writing environment of choice.  I could do all of that from the netbook, and while it was a little slow, it was preferable to hunting for a new lappy.

And so, I adjusted to not carrying a computer with me everyplace I went. It was an interesting, freeing feeling. As much as I appreciate the wonder of the Internet, I like being disconnected from it.  I prefer it to be what it is rapidly becoming; a background process for syncing my data, instead of a destination in and of itself. It was in this mindset that I went to Google I/O.

Anyone who follow tech news can fill in what happened next: at Google I/O everyone received a new Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1. I was shocked, surprised, and a little bewildered when I unboxed the new tech; I wasn’t quite sure what to do with it.  Earlier in the month I purchased a used iPad (first gen) for my wife. I played with the device and it annoyed the little hell out of me. So, now I had a new one all to myself, running Android.  What to do with it?

I decided to see if I could use it to replace my laptop. When I returned from my trip, I set the tablet on stand and hooked up a bluetooth keyboard. Viola; I had an ultraportable writing device.

Here is what I’ve learned about using the tablet as a replacement for a laptop:

• The whole setup is less weighty than a laptop, which I adore. I hate lugging tech. I prefer to travel light, and this works extremely well for me.
• The form-factor is excellent for writing: I prefer to work on a paper-shaped space (8.5 x 11) and the fact that I cannot have difference windows up on the screen means less distractions.
• The pairing between bluetooth keyboard and device is a little flaky. Sometimes the keyboard doesn’t like syncing, sometime a glitch of some sort causes keys to “stick” leading to unintended repeaaaaaaaaaating letter s. I’ve had one situation where the only fix was to shut down keyboard completely and then re-pair it with the device.
• Thus far, I cannot use Vim on Android other than by using SSH to travel to a Linux server. I am taking steps to remedy this.
• I have not tried to hook up a bluetooth mouse, and I’m curious to see how that would work, if at all. I will say that tapping the screen to move the cursor around (due to a lack of arrow keys on the software keyboard) makes it extremely difficult to edit text with any sort of speed. The external keyboard helps with this, but because of this limitation, I’ve come to refer to my tablet as a first-draft device, meaning that I have to edit on my netbook if I want to make significant progress. This might change as I get used to working on the tablet; we shall see.
• Gaming is out, natch.
• Skype is tenuous.
• Audio recording and editing for podcast is not possible.
• It is a fantastic media-consumption device; I use an excellent RSS reader called Pulse that links into my Google Reader account and makes reading the news truly enjoyable; it has become my morning newspaper. For reading books I still prefer my Kindle (backlit screens are hard on the eyes), but for short stints, the tablet does the job admirably.

As part of the Google I/O experience we will all be receiving a Chromebook, and I’ll report how that device enhances my laptopless existence. The Chrome operating system should be interesting to play with, but as a command-line guy at heart, I remain somewhat dubious.

Do you have a tablet?  How do you use it? How have other devices replaced a desktop or laptop in your life?

When I’m not engaged in the various activities my role as Chief Medical Officer requires here in The Lair¹, I am performing more mundane tasks² in the hospital setting. While it’s hard top The Lair in terms of the sheer oddity of both the Overlords and Minions, it turns out that my hospital has it’s own colorful cast of characters. Many of these are heroic, and others villainous, with a choice few attaining superhero/villain status. One such character may, in fact, be Tony Stark/Iron Man… at least in his own mind.

A new medical student recently started working with us, and from the beginning, he stood out as being a bit off. Naturally, I was drawn to observe his strange behavior, and quickly began to realize that he is either 1. Tony Stark made flesh and surreptitiously seeking The Mandarin in the bowels of my hospital, or 2. merely has delusions of Tony Starkhood. Being a good³ doctor, I have applied the scientific process to my observations, and so I present you my lines of evidence in this regard:

• A well-tailored, and accessorized, suit – We all know that Tony Stark likes to look his best, and is a fan of sartorial elegance in his public appearances outside of the Iron Man armor. Typically, medical students dress well and wear a white coat at all times, as a symbol of the profession they are growing into. Not this student. While wearing a white coat for clinical work, he is quick to stow it away at all other times in favor of an immaculately fitted suit, and hang out publicly to show off his be-suited body. This is easily a Stark-like trait.
• A Van Dyke of precise and unique grooming – Although it hasn’t always been this way in the comics, few things have defined the recent look of Tony Stark more than his loosely coiffed black hair and distinctively trimmed Van Dyke. Robert Downey, Jr. has epitomized this look in his recent portrayal of Stark in film. It should come as no surprise to you to learn that my medical student sports a very Downey-esque visage, complete with the distinctive angular Van Dyke seen in the Iron Man movies.
• Expensive, private schooling – Tony Stark is nothing if not filthy rich, and loves to focus that money on experiences that are expensive, exclusive, and beautiful. The student in question is training at an off-shore medical school on a tropical island that expensive, exclusive, and beautiful. Coincidence? I think not!
• Expensive, sporty cars – Another defining characteristic of Mr. Stark is a penchant for costly sports cars, both as a measure of wealth and for his interest in tinkering with all things mechanical. While he is with us in the hospital in the mainland US, my student is cruising about in a BMW. I need not say more.



• Tempted by a demon in a bottle – Perhaps the most well known of the classic Iron Man comic storylines is “Demon in a Bottle”, where Stark struggles with his addiction to alcohol. Knowing my interest in alcoholic beverages⁴, I am often quizzed by the student on the subject of extreme beers and gin varieties, which certainly establishes a particular interest in the topic. Much to my obvious pleasure but at the expense of this exercise, there is no evidence that he is an alcoholic.
• Buddies with the War Machine – One of Tony Stark’s best friends is James “Rhodey” Rhodes. My student once asked me if I was “Rhodey”. Actually, he may have just seen my long hair and have asked if I used to be a roadie. Work with me on this one, people.
• Carrying his costume in a briefcase – This is the final, and most convincing, piece of evidence. As most recently seen in Iron Man 2, Tony Stark has a suit of armor that can be portably contained inside a briefcase, in case of emergencies. My student is always carrying a briefcase, a habit which I didn’t originally think much of. Then, the following event happened: I was in a meeting with a group of residents, discussing patients. The medical student walked in without saying a word, and proceeded to sit down on a couch near me, just in the range of my peripheral vision. With deliberate movements, he set the briefcase on his lap, opened it, and in one swift motion, somehow removed his suit jacket, put on a white coat he had stashed in the briefcase, and smoothly stood up, all at the same time. He then proceeded to clench his fists and look the group over, as though he was basking in the power of just-donned armor. He then proceeded to leave the room swiftly, in order to fight crime. Or, see his patients. One of the two.

In conclusion, while the medical student in question may or may not really be Tony Stark, at the very least he certainly thinks he is. Why else would he come to do rotations at a hospital renowned for cardiac procedures, if not to remove life-threatening shrapnel from his chest? Perhaps there is a Mandarin plot afoot in our hallowed halls… or maybe Fing Fang Foom lies sleeping beneath the foundation of the new hospital building that’s under construction? These questions need answering, and so I shall engage in further scientific observations, for the chance to recruit Tony Stark’s resources and prowess to the side of The Secret Lair is an opportunity that the Overlords would be exceedingly displeased at me for missing. And I can guarantee you that the displeasure of the Overlords is something noone wishes to incur.

1. Between the crackpot schemes of Minister Lynn and the frisky enthusiasm of the shetland-bonobos, it’s a wonder I ever leave. That’s not even taking the ever-pressing requests of Overlords Johnson and Miller into consideration. [↩]
2. Such as curing syphilis, for one. [↩]
3. Or, in this case, Bad [↩]
4. Alcohol kills germs. Also, microbes are required for that whole fermentation thing. Also, I’ve taken care of a few people with serious infections due to brewer’s yeast… not pretty. [↩]

Dropping 7. Or 2. We can drop 2.

This was originally to be a review of you’d-better-own-it-by-now-if-you-have-an-iPhone Drop 7, but quickly slid into the ranting of a discontented grognard when I discovered the news of that game property’s sale to a different company, and it’s subsequent tweaking. Hold on, let me get my beating cane¹… there we go. Let’s do this.

Time was, if you wanted buy a program for your home computer, be it a game or a word processor, you could go to the store and buy it in a box. This was very similar to how one would go out to buy, say, a hardback novel or an eggplant, and came with a similar consumer-minded set of expectations: the thing that you bought was tangibly yours to do with as you please, it was a final product that was professionally finished and complete, and it did exactly what you would expect it to². We have not entirely left this time behind us yet, but new methods for sale and delivery of software, as well as new devices on which to use it, have forced us to shelve this older consumer perspective is favor of wrestling with what ownership, copyright, and even “a finished program” mean in the digital age.

As an old geezer from the heady days of the early retail computer era, I lamented the original changes I saw with the rise of the Internet as a way to aid software distribution. The first steps were baby ones, taken with the screetch and stutter of modemry. These involved shareware/demos/smaller utilities, because there was NO WAY that people would be crazy enough to either distribute or receive full programs online((Well, someone who didn’t have a few days, a hundred floppy disks, and access to a BBS or five of that dealt in something called warez. Which was never me. Nope.)). What stoked my ire was the trend of developers realizing that this new thing gave them an “out” when it came to a finished project – no longer did the thing that was in the box need to work perfectly, or even be the final thing, as you could just provide a patch over the Internet for any problems once the software was released. Of course, business decisions being what they are, this led to cases of software being shipped in an essentially unusable state in order to meet an arbitrary sales deadline, with the assumption on someone’s part that this was okay to do because it could be fixed later.

Fortunately, as we have boldly stepped into the future, good business sense has often prevailed, and instances of such profit-focused shortcutting remain the rare exception. Also, the ever-increasing prevalence of high-bandwidth SKYNET Internet access and the always-improving tech specs of comp-u-tronic devices have led to digital distribution methods for entire, large programs³. That noted, interest of late has surged in creating more streamlined software optimized for digital distribution. The rise of the smartphone as a popular and viable platform has brought this idea to the fore, in the concept of the app. Central to the app idea is not just that it’s a program, but it’s a program that can be updated periodically to add new features, or overcome issues with a new iteration of the smartphone flavor of the week. The end result is a program that, depending on what it is intended to do, may never have a final version.

This makes sense for many apps, but for certain programs and games, once the developer gets it right, there’s never a need to issue another update⁴. But when one is wedded to an auto-update service like iTunes/the Apple App Store for us iPhone users, the potential exists for a developer to not leave well enough alone, and decide to change a program that’s worked just fine for years for inscrutable reasons, yielding a net negative for the consumer.

Let us consider the case of the game Drop 7. *smacks beating cane into palm*

Drop 7 is my first recommendation whenever someone asks what to snag as a game for the iPhone. Owning a bit of inspiration from both Tetris and Bejeweled, Drop 7 is a puzzle game that involves dropping balls onto a 7 by 7 gameboard, using tactical number matching to clear the screen and score points. It strikes the sweet spot for a phone game – short, easy to return to if interrupted, and with just the right mix of luck and challenge – so much so that it’s my reflex to load it anywhere from a prolonged elevator ride to when a commercial comes on live television. Since coming to market in early 2009, it’s been critically well-reviewed and has made numerous Top-Whatever lists for iPhone games. Apart from tweaks for issues with new iPhone OS releases, it hasn’t seen any frequent updates, because it hasn’t needed any. I paid the few measly dollars, I played a ridiculous amount, and all was well.

At least, until a few weeks ago, when Area/Code Entertainment sold Drop 7 to developer Zynga, who then released an auto-update for the game, as well as a completely new version. And as the Internet is want to do, bad reviews commenced.

Zynga decided they needed to release a new version with “enhanced retinal display graphics”⁵, in both a free ad-supported version and a pay ad-replete version. By many counts, the graphics are apparently optimized for the retinas of hagfish, and furthermore, many users are experiencing bugs that make the game unplayable. Fortunately, as an owner of the original version, I am not being forced to download either of the new ones. Unfortunately, Zynga wants to push me towards downloading the new stuff, so released an update for my version that includes an obnoxious screen with the start of every game that asks if I want to download the new retinal-rrific experience. It only stands to reason that in the future, they may phase out the old app entirely.

While it seems a relatively minor quibble, keep in mind that I’m holding a beating cane. Also, it brings up an interesting side effect of auto-update services like iTunes, in that you may be repeatedly prompted to download a new version that you know is inferior to the current one. Yes, you can choose not to update that particular app, but anyone who has used iTunes knows that the momentum of the service is to update everything, and to retain an older version of any app is inconvenient at best.

Despite my grumblings, I look forward to the further expansion of digital software delivery, and the eventual death of going to a brick and mortar⁶ to buy a computer program. One of the biggest challenges will be for the consumer mindset to move away from the expectation of buying a box that contains the final, finished program. Digital delivery offers the promise of being able to deliver valuable new content and updates, as well as bug fixes, immediately⁷. One of the largest threats to consumers accepting this is the potential for developers to want to make changes to a stellar chunk of code for the sake of change itself, and being locked in to services like iTunes which don’t give consumers the easy autonomy to avoid unwanted updates. Here’s hoping that other parties in our lovely free market environment can develop delivery systems that allow for more robust user content and update control so that it’s just as easy to stay with a software version that works as it is to upgrade to a newer one.

At Zynga, I point my beating cane disapprovingly. But not for too long, because I can start a new game in the time this takes to upload.

Drop 7 gameplay video

1. I really do need a beating cane. Ideally, it would be a stout and true shillelagh, because I’m 1/8th Irish. Also, if I were able to obtain any superpower, it would be to project bolts of energy through said shillelagh ala Black Tom Cassidy, because, really, who wouldn’t do that if they could. Not I. [↩]
2. This is a separate issue from said software not working because the purchaser was an idiot didn’t ensure that it was compatible with their computer. From my ancient customer service and tech support experience at CompUSA, I can assure you that 99% of the software returns for “it not working” were due to user error, either in terms of trying to use a program on a system it wasn’t rated for, or something the user had done to the hardware or during the install that borked things up; it was a relatively rare thing for it to be totally the software’s fault. [↩]
3. Valve Software’s Steam service is a prime example from the gaming realm. [↩]
4. Barring the predictable future issues with a phone OS upgrade, of course [↩]
5. Really, the person who wrote that ad copy must have worked on Star Trek as one of the people who inserted tech jargon into scripts. [↩]
6. RIP CompUSA, specifically the Dayton, OH, store, d. 2007 [↩]
7. I would not at all be surprised if franchise programs, like office suites or sports games that put out a new version every year or few, eventually move to a subscription model to the end user, instead of requiring the purchase of a new program on a regular basis. [↩]

What a sad world we live in when spaceflight has become blasé.

Discovery has flown her last mission and unless the private sector continues to pursue it, America has given up her place as a pioneer in manned spaceflight. All things must end, but when I reflect on the fact that cellphone footage of a rebellion in Libya that had been going on for a week drowned out the final flight of what was once America’s dream, I feel more than a little sad.

We forget the wonder. We have more stories to distract us, endless amounts of “science fiction-ish” entertainment with CGI aliens so real-look you’d swear you could bump into one at Starbucks. As a society, we’re more absorbed with Angry Birds than with exploring the stars. How banal, how shallow, how very, very sad.

Did you know NASA has just completed their first successful orbit of the planet Mercury?  Haven’t heard of the MESSENGER project on your FOX, CNN, HLN, or NPR?  Neither have I. I found out thanks to reading Charles Stross’s blog. I had to read a Scottish science fiction author’s blog to realize that NASA was doing something amazing.

That’s just so very wrong.

We geeks love our science fiction entertainment. How many novels have you read that involved spaceflight? How about computer technology developed in-part because of the space program? How about stories about extra-planetary colonization? Aliens and offworlders?

And then…think about the last time you reading about NASA in the news when it wasn’t a tragedy. THe “everyday” work of exploring the vast reaches beyond our atmosphere.  The chick that sang the Friday, Friday song is getting more press than NASA is right now. What does that say about us a culture?

I’m as culpable as anyone. Worse, in many ways. My father worked for NASA. In my parents’ attic are boxes of memorabilia that I kept: posters of the Saturn V rocket, promotional material for the Space Shuttle while it was in construction, stack after stack of educational pamphlets and other Really Cool Things. I should be paying better attention. I remember how amazing sending men into space felt, what it triggered in my imagination. I remember both the wonder fo watching the Space Shuttle take off and the horrying sense of grief and loss that came from the Challenger tragedy. Yet, I’m as oblivious as anyone else these days.

We need a little more cool science in our lives. We need to be reminded that there are wonders beyond HD TV and Netflix. That the universe is full of Neat Shit, and we aren’t nearly as smart as we think we are.

Take some time this week and consider the amazing time in which we live. Go find out why something works. Spend some time reading up on what’s going on in space exploration. Remind yourself that there are more wonders out there than in your Star Trek Fanfic or your Harry Potter trivia book.